31 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm writing bios on women composers and I have primary sources that I could add. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'd like to use what was there already. Primary sources are not that difficult to find for her. Thanks. Pkeets ( talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted claiming "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." This article is about a publishing company and presents two instances -- producing a book trailer directed by a notable filmaker and putting on an academic conference -- that indicate why it is important.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedy Restore. Passes WP:PORNBIO, because she won an AVN Award. Links: IMBD & AVN Awards site. -- Hixteilchen ( talk) 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Westbrook Technologies is a major document management software company which has received awards and recognition from various sources. It has been deleted for advertising/promotion, however I feel that the sources cited and language used show the importance of Westbrook Technologies in the document management industry. I have discussed with the editor who deleted, but he/she has not responded from my further questions and debate, giving me no further explanation. Please reconsider the deletion of the article (perhaps restoring the article for editors to see and discuss) or please inform me how I can edit it for approval. Odonnetp ( talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 December 2010
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page 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. |
27 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Administrator closed discussion as keep (free), claiming that the text in the image was not subject to copyright protection because "malware is not afforded copyright protection." When I asked her to reconsider and cite authority for this, the administrator responded saying that "any person who claimed to own the copyright of this image would likely be prosecuted under laws regarding computer crimes." I am still not convinced that something along the lines of unclean hands allows us to disregard copyrights on images like this one or be compatible with CC-BY-SA. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Faulty close. Clearly no consensus. Add to this closing admin's lack of rationale for the decision. meco ( talk) 08:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
note: I'm not that good with Wiki-formatting; someone who is good at it, please fix. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians The above AFD was closed with an incorrect assumption: The result was delete. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC) There are several problems with this AFD. I will start with the most-obvious: 1. "It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable." This is FICTION! The GRG has been recognized by major sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, USA Today, etc. For example, check out this article here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip Note the listing of the Gerontology Research Group, along with Guinness World Records. Thus, the above conclusion is wrong on two counts: A. It fails to consider the availability of reliable sources B. It passes judgment on the reliability of outside sources, even though reliability of the GRG is also established by other notable outside sources. I doubt any of you would argue against USA Today or the Wall Street Journal being non-notable. 2. If this were the only issue. Sadly, it is not. JJBulten has indicated a plot to delete all articles on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" sources, because he believes they conflict with his belief that humans can live to 969 because the Bible says that Methuselah lived to 969. Aside from the fact that many Christians argue that Biblical longevity is not comparable to longevity today, what is at issue here is not JJ's belief but whether Wikipedia follows correct Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR, which mean that mainstream, reliable outside sources should establish or disestablish notability, not one's personal agenda. 3. JJBulten has argued, online, even on Wikipedia!, that he plans to delete articles such as this first, and then argue that the List of European supercentenarians is biased because there are no articles on "minorities." Talk about incredulity! So JJ targeted minority articles first, because they were easier to delete, then he plans to hypocritically argue that the European articles are biased? 4. Can anyone seriously argue that geographic organization by continent is a bad idea? Ryoung122 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A. Most centenarian articles are on persons who were already notable, but for whom great age conferred additional notability (such as Sir Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885). Most supercentenarian articles are on persons who are notable for great age only. B. The USA, for example, has about 96,000 centenarians but only about 50-70 supercentenarians. Only about 1 in 1000 (if that) centenarians are 110+ at any one time. Thus, supercentenarians are several orders of magnitude rarer, and their age verification becomes paramount to both scientific and general public (Guinness Book) acceptance as "recordholders". Since age verification is tied to the system of recordkeeping in a given nation, it makes sense to organize cases by nation (much like a football team article will have a list of all the players on the team, by team). In this case, the "team" is the "national" team. As for continent-wide inquiry, it must be admitted that most of the cases come from Europe and North America, Japan and Australia. That said, it is incorrect to assume that validated cases cannot come from Africa or South America. Examples of verified cases from Colombia, Ecuador, or Cape Verde can help encourage a wider appreciation that, where-ever systems of recordkeeping are in good order, all humans live to the same ages (about 110-115, maximum, very rarely above that). A lot of this should be thought of as less of Wiki policy and more of reflecting outside sources. Consider, for example, that the field of longevity research into supercentenarians has had to battle myths of localized longevity, or the idea that certain groups of people live longer in certain areas. Thus, there is a stated need to show that, in fact, geography has relatively little bearing on maximum life span. Some have claimed that "mountain air" and "clean water" are responsible for people living to 140+ in places like Vilcabamba...ideas like that have been debunked. Instead, we find that genetics, not region, is paramount. Mitoyo Kawate survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to live to 114. Tase Matsunaga lived to 114 in the biggest metro area in the world, Tokyo. If we take a look at the continent-wide records: Europe: 122 (Jeanne Calment, 1997) North America: 119 (Sarah Knauss, 1999) South America: 116 (Maria Capovilla, 2006) Asia: 116 (Tane Ikai, 2005) Africa: 114 (Anne Primout, 2005) Australia: 114 (Christina Cock, 2002) We find that there is a base minimum (114). Without Jeanne Calment, the outlier, Europe's record would be 115. Without Sarah Knauss, North America's record would be 117 I think Wikipedia needs to do a little more qualitative assessment here. Ryoung122 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to either relist, or non-consensus. Actually Sjakkallei could simply revert his own close--I think that is always permissible. The arb com has no authority about the reliability of sources or the acceptability of articles, so its conclusions do not seem relevant here. . DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The administrator who closed this (and similar) AFD's on supercentenarian articles (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii) Sandstein, listed a rationale for deletion that is contrary to the evidence presented in the AFD discussion. 1. Self-published sources: did Tase Matsunaga publish her own sources? Certainly not. She was covered in reliable, cited, outside sources. Therefore, the rationale for the AFD decision was incorrect. It should also be noted that this article was part of a massive 9-article "deletion" attack by JJBulten, who has confessed online to targeting supercentenarian articles for deletion, with an agenda. To call someone out for lying and cabalism, when those accusations are proven and sourced to online sources, is not "inappropriate conduct." A referee throwing a flag for a foul being committed is not the committer of the foul. Thus, this and similar articles need a second go-through. 2. Tase Matsunaga was Japan's oldest person and her final age (114 years 191 days) is higher than any verified supercentenarian currently living. Notability is not temporary; this is not a "one event." There were reports, for example, of her gaining the title, then reports of dying. That's two events, at a minimum. Thus, the second rationale for deletion is also incorrect. A third reason: JJBulten violated Wiki policies and decorum on AFD, including mass-spamming, mass-nomination of articles, voting for his own self, and recruiting/canvassing to get "votes." The article itself lasted for years and years. Does notability suddenly evaporate, like current events passing? I think not. A fourth reason: JJBulten has accused articles on supercentenarians of being biased in favor of Europeans, but this is after he targeted for deletion articles such as List of African supercentenarians, List of South American supercentenarians, and then supercentenarians from Japan. Thus, this person had nominated this article in bad faith, and got this through the process as if it were a 'vote'. It is not. Thus, the process needs to be reviewed. -- Ryoung122 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Did you know that the average world's oldest person keeps the title for 1.12 years? That's a lot more rare than, for example, a baseball player. 2. Yet, we have articles on ball players who had only 1 major-league at-bat, ever, and by default they are "notable". 3. The rationale behind the deletion was incorrect. 4. Another option, to merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians, was not considered. ' 5. Notability for extreme age alone can be established by outside sources, not one's personal opinion of whether persons are notable by age. 6. Japan, with 127+ million persons, tracks 100% of their citizens and "confers" the title of "Oldest Person in Japan", thus establishing outside-source notability. Ryoung122 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note that JJBulten, AFTER agreeing to cooperate/attempt to find consensus, underhandedly opened the ArbCom discussion when I said that I would be AWAY from Wikipedia for a month in order to concentrate on finishing my Master's degree in history, which I did complete December 15, 2010. I see no reason to wait for the ArbCom results. The ArbCom was a political-religious vendetta that seeks to block/reduce the scientific position on supercentenarians on Wikipedia, in favor of non-mainstream religious fanaticism. Nominating sourced and vetted articles such as Tase Matsunaga of Japan, then claiming the sources don't exist when they do, or then claiming the sources are not reliable when they are, is typical of the inappropriate behavior that, indeed, should be discussed at ArbCom. But what can be discussed here is that: A. Sources exist B. Notability is established by outside sources C. A compromise, "merge" option seems to often be overlooked by those who try to make this a chess game Was Tase Matsunaga reported to be Japan's oldest person by the government of Japan? Yes. Was Tase Matsunaga featured in continuing, multiple media coverage that existed outside of the local area of interest? Yes. Does Tase Matsunaga rank in the top 50 verified persons all-time, as established by outside sources? Yes. Was proper consideration given to adequately notify the article creator of the need to "upgrade" the article? No. Were attempts made to tag the article before it became an article on a "hit list" by JJBulten? No. Is clear and convincing evidence that JJBulten nominated this article for deletion in bad faith, as part of his plan to delete all supercentenarian biographies? Yes. Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to undo the AFD, restore the article, and go through the process fairly. Ryoung122 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
In explaining this close, I'll start with a few headcounts, with the caveats that (a) headcounts aren't conclusive in closing either an XfD or a DRV; and (b) my headcounts might be a little inaccurate. The headcount at this DRV is 42-23 to endorse. Those kinds of numbers would generally need to be associated with a significant imbalance in the quality of arguments to warrant anything other than an endorse close. Two other counts are worth considering. First, if we exclude all participants in the TfD who !voted in favour of their position at this DRV, the headcount is 29-13. Secondly, and quite tellingly, six editors "crossed the floor" at this DRV to endorse the close that went against their keep !votes. Only one editor crossed the floor in the other direction. The above three counts together point to a consensus to endorse, subject to there being a significant imbalance in the quality of arguments that would warrant a different close. The "overturn" side put forward the following general arguments at this DRV. This summary is necessarily brief and cannot be comprehensive:
There were good arguments raised to overturn. But they didn't influence the discussion in such a way as to affect the consensus. Notably, even after the few overturn !votes were made that attempted to engage with the reasons for the close, the endorse !votes kept coming, and if anything at an increasing rate (including those from non-participants in the TfD and those who "crossed the floor"). Accordingly, those arguments can't be said to have anything like consensus support. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
The administrator who closed this TFD has obviously put a lot of thought into their close, but the simple fact is that the !votes on it are pretty much a dead heat, I don't see how this can be a delete close when it is clearly a No Consensus. They've already stated that the deletes are between 65 and 68, keeps at 67 - that is not a delete close. No way. I ask for this Deletion to be overturned forthwith, it is not valid to close in this manner when votes are this tight. Barking Fish 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place in the discussion to put this (I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages- I've forgot a lot of the procedures), but I have to say this needs to be an "overturn due to no consensus reached". The admin went on a vote, and not the merit of the points put foward, and keep would STILL have won if they counted IPs. The expand tag is one I use all the time, like many other editors, if I see something wrong with an article I just tag and let the hard-core editors sort it out. This means that now I (and many others) will have to spend ages doing what the average editor shouldn't be expected to do (go through the whole thing and analyse exactly what needs changing, you might as well just do it). Mod MMG ( User Page) Reply on my talkpage. 05:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Weak overturn to no consensus. This is a very difficult one to judge for me, especially having participated in the original deletion discussion; at the time I thought that the conclusion (based on my mental tallying of !votes) would be "no consensus" - notwithstanding my personal support for deletion. I have to say I was very surprised to see it closed as "delete", and also surprised to see the logic and rationale for this. However, I thought it was a bold decision and one that was clearly in line with the accepted principle, rarely implemented in practice, that consensus is not equal to vote counting. Let me say, I think this decision is historic. If it is allowed to stand, it has the potential to break through a problem we have had for while: achieving consensus with mass participation discussions. As someone else noted, these inevitably end up as 50:50 votes, with little actual discussion between participants. My other concern, however, is just as strong: this decision will end up increasing the power of Admins, who will inevitably move away from a role of implementing community consensus and towards a role of arbitrating discussions. That, I believe, is a negative trend that would extend the power structures on Wikipedia and move us away from the flat structured community that has been the foundation of our success. As someone else said, this is about introducing !supervotes, and this isn't consistent with the established consensus among users for what the role of admins should be. Therefore, I would err on the side of caution and say it should be overturned, with the alternative solutions for dealing with the problem addressed instead. AndrewRT( Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page meets notability requirements. Slugguitar ( talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion); (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal
wrongful speedy of referenced blp. Occoquan ( talk) 16:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Self DRV; administrator User:Rich Farmbrough, involved with the RfD, overturned close without discussion, so am double-checking that close was right here. I don't see anything wrong with it though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Buckshot06 used his administrative privilege to delete Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre articles without reviewing the case, participating in or awaiting the outcome of discussions on the talk pages. The deletion, as admitted by deleting administrator here, was carried out solely at the suggestion of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom case participant, currently under editing restrictions per A-A Arbcom, User:MarshallBagramyan. Two administrators at WP:AN already opined here and here that the deletion of articles did not follow the appropriate procedure. I kindly request that the articles are restored and the proper procedure is followed for either deleting topical pages without selection of backgrounds or keeping them. ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The debate was
relisted after seven days with a
note reading, "consensus split, pointless NCing this one." I would agree that there was neither any consensus to keep nor any to delete at that point.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There's an editor, User:Lolox76, who seems to be hot under the collar about the deletion of Artur Balder which seemingly arose out of the AfD for Curdy. Input from the upset Lolox76 appears on User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Deletion_of_new_article_Artur_Balder. The gist of the case appears to be "A simple Google search would proof evidence of his work as a well known writer, and the article at the english wikipedia Little Spain recelntly appeared sustains enormous critical attention evoked by the documentary that discovers a district of Manhattan." I remain unconvinced, but I had two minutes to spare and thought I'd help the complainant by putting this deletion review together. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them: El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1 On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links: http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author: http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15 The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain: The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too: htt://www.widukind.eu References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain": Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain. The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english: Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune: http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105 And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure. The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/ Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one. I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past. Lolox76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
-- Lolox76 ( talk) 09:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Now meets WP:CORP Cdulaney ( talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 December 2010
20 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural nomination. This article was speedied by Orangemike ( talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Quuxplusone ( talk · contribs) has been urging me to undelete it and take it to AfD instead. I have no strong opinion on the article itself; I think the A7 was reasonable, and I also think the request to grant a full AfD is reasonable. But rather than taking it on myself to undo the administrative actions of another admin I think it would be better to go through proper channels, so I'm bringing the request here: please undo the speedy deletion and take this to AfD. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was closed by a non-admin and was a contentious one that clearly falls outside the boundary of appropriate closures for a non-admin. this non-admin even it came to close to delete but does not appear to give good enough reason why it falls short. the discussion failed to yield substantial evidence of indepth coverage of this topic. LibStar ( talk) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is pretty straightforward I think. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It is a new channel not a rebranded C4. C4 will continue and is moving to replace C42. Socks 01 07:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page had no real third party sourced when nominated, when the initial votes were made. I then added several good citations. Sadly sock puppets got involved in voting, and one person kept advocating for deletion. Initially the page was found to have "no concensus", but then one keep vote was found to be a sock puppet, making the delete outnumber the keeps, so the page was decision was changed to delete by the admin. Still, I feel it has sources now, so despite some initial "delete" votes from when it had no sources, it should be acceptable as an article now. Mathewignash ( talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No reason to restore an article about something without significant coverage. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) How about these articles: http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/botcon05-review.htm and http://mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/airastro-review.htm Mathewignash ( talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
See, it's run by Fun Publications, the company responsible for Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this was addressed at the AfD that no sources have Transformers: Timelines as their main topic. I'd like to point out again that nobody seems to have found third-party sources regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories. Those stories make up the bulk of Timelines fiction, but they don't seem to receive any reliable third-party coverage whatsoever. NotARealWord ( talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
NEW SOURCES
The film is notable and has reliable sources now, a selection of which you can find attached. Deleting admin Ron Ritzman suggested to open a Deletion Review.
JUST INÈS featured in German national broadcast:
http://www.swr.de/tv/-/id=2798/did=7224930/pv=video/nid=2798/c6wa5g/index.html Marquitox ( talk) 11:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The deletes clearly outnumber the keeps. In fact, there are 7 of them. But as the AFD was coming toward a close, there were attempts made to address the issues in the article that lead to the deletion proposal. Toward the end, there was one keep and one person who offered to change a delete to a keep if these changes were made. Someone was already in the process of working on adding sources from long in the past that they claimed existed. I, myself, tried to offer a compromise solution. The main problem is simply that "time ran out." There was no time to discuss what to do following these changes, which I did not even get to see myself. The AFD reached 7 days in length, and therefore, a closing admin came along, saw all the deletes, probably thought automatically this was something to delete, and quickly closed it as such. Evidence of this can be seen in that the admin simply wrote "The result of delete" and nothing more. This page should be restored, at least for now, to allow more time to discuss. Xyz7890 ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article is part of student colaboration project on Serbian Wikipedia. The user who created i mistakenly made it here, who please undelete the article and move it to his userspace. It is urgent, today is deadline for evaluating student works. -- Bojan Talk 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No notification to my talk page, no valid reason to delete beyond deleter saying rationale wasn't good enough, the person is dead. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:Hc-hagedorn-150.jpg&diff=401271875&oldid=401195736){kind=link}
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The BlowUpRadio.com page was deleted for being not being significant. Every line of the page had been attributed to a source. The website/internet station is the only 24/7 swtation to play NJ bands, has been around 10 years, has helped break many well known bands, and done benefits to help the community and non-profit organizations (again all attributed on the page). I ask that the page be reinstated as it is clearly of significance. Also, a link and mention to BlowUpRadio.com was deleted from the NJ Music page as being spam, [43] even though BlowUpRadio.com is the only station that plays NJ music 24/7, and has been doing so for 10 years. I do not understand how that reference is considered spam. Please reinstate the mention and link. -- ; Talk 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)— Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
First off, it's starting to look like it's only ever Cirt who closes these aircrash Afds - that is surely grounds for reviewing his decisions to make sure they are correct in terms of the community's view of these debates, as from where I'm standing, his closing statements, which are at least now progressing beyond the no statement at all approach to closing, don't look similar at all to the detailed expressed thought process of other admins who have closed them in the past w.r.t how they read these debates - namely what constitutes a good and bad argument, and how editors can and can't show that EVENT is met. In this specific closure, Cirt simply just makes a vague statement that there is a "strong consensus", so we can start with that - how exactly were the delete arguments rebutted, for example 'Wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses'? He doesn't say. What did he think of the accusations and defences of argument by assertion in that regard? Again, he doesn't say. Secondly, he goes on to say there were "editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - well, from where I'm sitting, ignoring the immediate 2003 news report, which surely every can see does not meet EVENT on it's own, then this must amount to the 2006 NTSB report, and the one news article from 2006 about the report coming out. So, is he endorsing the keeper's view that all you need to write an aircrash article that meets EVENT is just an NTSB report, or not? Is he endorsing the idea that this one 2006 news report represented 'significant, extensive, in-depth, ongoing' coverage that meets both GNG and EVENT, or not? It's worth clarifying that point at least, because concluding that NTSB reports are defacto N-worthy for EVENT has huge implications, as it makes every single crash automatically notable - a very obvious violation of WP:NOT if you ask me. And if he didn't mean just the NTSB report and it's one piece of (trade press) news coverage, is he referring to the book sources presented? If so, why does he not comment on the fact that the keepers didn't present any evidence that they contained anything about the crash, apart from a list entry? Even if we are (completely artificially and unjustifiably) restricting this notion of aircrash notability to 'hull losses', why did Cirt not comment on the complete silence that met the presentation of actual figures which show just how many crashes per year per one aircraft type would meet this notion of notability, and the obvious implications? Frankly, precisely because this whole topic is in dispute, with contradictory views on both sides, a closure that actually addresses the specific points raised is beyond necessary by now. If Afd closers don't actually start to close them with actual reference to the actual arguments made and disputed, then these articles are going to continue to be written, and Afd'd, not least because the attempted guideline to settle this dispute, AIRCRASH, has not got any further than 'it must meet the GNG, EVENT, and NOT#NEWS', and editors still have frankly, massively different ideas about how you meet those for aircrashes - as you can see in this idea that an NTSB report is a secondary source, and is all that is required in terms of WP:N - at the very least that is what Cirt should have commented on, not give vague statements (actually, stating 'strong consensus' means that the delete arguments were utterly shit - so that requires some explanation - exceptional claims and exceptional evidence and all that.) Frankly, when you actually look at his closure - "The result was keep. Significant consensus is present for Keep, with editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - if you actually go and look at some of them, you could copy and paste that into any past aircrash Afd for any article except the most absolutely trivial of incidents which simply don't make the news at all, and it wouldn't sound like it contradicts the 'consensus' one bit - well, if you read AIRCRASH, that is quite obviously not what the purpose of that essay or even Wikipedia actually is, for some pretty obvious reasons, starting with WP:NOT and working downwards. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The argument for deletion were many errors and sources from 50 years after the fact. While the details of the defeat of the Prussian army by the Turks may be debatable, the battle itself is documented. The report of A.J.Gross-Hoffinger (Leipzig, Nachdruuck, 1847) Die Geschichte des Joseph II (a scanned version can be seen at Josephs des Zweiten, but it is rather difficult to read because of the gotic alfabet) may not be of confidence, and the events narrated by him are probably bogus. But there is a letter from Joseph II to the first minister Kaunitz (Austrian Archives, Lettres d'empereur Josph II à prince Kaunitz) Joseph writes "The disaster our army has suffered, because the cowardliness of some units, is at the moment imponderable. The panic spread everywhere, in the heart of army, in the heart of Caransebes people, and by all the way to Temesvar, what is about ten leagues (about 40 km). I cannot describe in words the violence and the terrible carnage that happened." (translation from a translation from French to Portuguese of the letter is mine). The details of the reason for the defeat, like the Gypsy camp and the liquor, and the dispute for the liquor probably are not true, but the battle is documented, as is the defeat, and it is documented by a very good primary source, Joseph II himself. About the two modern books cited, The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders by Potomac Books does not cite sources, and its publisher is not well seen, and the other book Hinge Factor by Eric Durschmied was published by the now closed Arcade Publishing, but there is at least two other books: The history of nations. Vol 14 by Henry Cabot Lodge published by P. F. Collier & son in 1907 and Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century. Vol 4 of Sir Edward Cust published by J. Murray in 1862. There is still a description of the campaign and the defeat in an Scotish Magazine in 1788: Scots Magazine 1788. It seems the the battle itself, and the defeat is documented, or better, the panic and deaths during the retreat is well documented, and the later chase of the Prussian army by the Turksish army, while is questionable that we can call this "battle" it seems that something very wrong happened in the retreat, and call this event "battle of Karansebes" seems logical, there was an important defeat. This event is documented by the letter of Joseph II, the press of the time, and at least two books besides of the cited in the deletion talk (I am researching what were the sources of these two books), this seems to corroborate the A.J.Gross-Hoffinger report, at least in the part about the retreat an the deaths, but none of them cite the event of the liquor that really seems like a hoax. -- Agranero ( talk) 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Connexion.org has grown in reach considerably since this page was removed and given the other sites that have pages, I'd like to ask that this one be restored so that I may update it and make it relevant with citations. Alexa rank 57,830 with 145 sites linking in. I tried contacting the deleting admin but didn't receive a response. Laddbosworth ( talk) 17:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Couple of mentions as a starting point:
Laddbosworth ( talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Withdrawn, see below)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The closing admin stated that there were no keep !votes, however my stated "oppose" to deletion was intended as such. I'm not sure if this will or should overturn deletion but the deletion rationale is not correct. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Their picoprojector won awards at CES this year, and there are articles all over the place about SHOWWX+, the new version. They have a contract with the U.S. military to develop wearable displays, and they are on the stock market with pretty decent profits. It's only a matter of time before this company is a household name, I can't understand why there is no page because I'd like to find out more. 192.198.151.36 ( talk) 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
13 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am trying to fill in the Wisconsin gaps in two Wikipedia lists, List of streetcar systems in the United States and List of Wisconsin railroads by writing pages where they do not exist. (see my talk for details). I started with the small Waupaca system because it was easier. Only to see it deleted because it was small! The whole point of the exercise is completeness. The other rational for deletion was that there are few results of a Google search. However almost all material predates the internet, does that lessen its value? To make information available online is part of the point of writing the article. Every railroad line ever built in the UK is described on Wikipedia. The completeness of the project is a wonder to behold. I suppose I could go though them deleting the small ones now no longer operating on the grounds of none importance but what would be the point? So what was the point of deleting the Waupaca system? -- Wickifrank ( talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 December 2010
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article has had a turbulent history, with an AfD marred by SPA activity, a lot of agitation suggesting off-wiki canvassing, two previous DRVs on August 4 and September 26, and repeated reposting which led me to salt the title. However, over the last weeks the incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin has been seriously improved. In my opinion the references are now good enough for the article to be returned to the main space, but in view of the history I bring it here for the community's view. JohnCD ( talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Jpgordon (
talk ·
contribs) deleted this user talk page of a banned sockpuppeteer (renamed to
Kwork2 (
talk ·
contribs)) per
WP:CSD#U1, which however explicitly excludes user talk pages. No other speedy deletion criteria apply. In particular, WP:RTV is not a valid reason for deletion by Jpgordon. A recent RFC concluded (and WP:RTV#Deletion of user talk pages confirms) that user talk pages of vanishing users may only exceptionally be deleted by decision of the renaming bureaucrat. Jpgordon is not a bureaucrat. Moreover, the page was already deleted once in 2008 per WP:RTV and then restored because the user subsequently reappeared, which indicates that this user's vanishings tend not to be permanent. Finally, the user continues to make much personal information public at commons:User:Malcolm Schosha and meta:User:Malcolm Schosha, which also makes any claims that he wants to disassociate himself from his Wikipedia activity less credible. The speedy deletion was therefore procedurally flawed and should be overturned. The page may then either be listed at WP:MFD so that the community can discuss whether there are any good reasons to delete it, or the renaming bureaucrat can make that decision per RTV. (There are reasonable arguments for deletion, which do not convince me fully, but in any case it is not Jpgordon's job to make that decision.) Relevant discussion is at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork and at User talk:Jpgordon#User talk:Malcolm_Schosha. The most recent deletion by JzG ( talk · contribs) was merely a redirect to the renamed user talk page. Sandstein 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 ( talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No consensus. The article was nominated for deletion on grounds of failing notability guidelines. Since then, the notability of the subject has been established with several independent sources listed on the AFD page. This has been acknowledged even by the editor who originally listed the article for deletion. [49] 78.131.80.59 ( talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Colonel Warden's links / reason, which the administrator Sandstein preferred over to the majority's given opposite statements, lead to books of two non-reliable authors. And I'm strongly disagree with Sandstein's opinion that no convincing reasons for deletion were provided, they were provided by several users there. And I'm raising article's authors politcal views because it's an ISSUE here, usual people wouldn't try to blame the entire group of people but instead focus on individuals that do it without labeling others for their attitudes / crimes. We already have similar and a highly controversial article here, do we really need another one which undoubtedly was made to make bias against immigrants, here's an example from this article "and counting on the amount of money criminal immigrants cost the society has been banned with the explanation that "...you cannot calculate the value of human lives"." Note the tone it was made of. It's a clear pushing of views. And as administrator sees these books as convincing for keeping, so what now if some authors wrote about crimes by giving their books almost identical titles - that should be enough to create an article here under this title? No, there are many other aspects which should be taken into account when approaching this debate. And users from first discussion for deletion and the second gave reasonable statements why this article shouldn't be under its currently given title and that it can't be neutral as the title itself prohibits it by its own title and how it puts the question, don't disregard them so fast like the admin Sandstein who found them all unconvincing. Userpd ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 December 2010
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article contains valid information for a software widely used in many European countries and references to the pages of the several ministries of education who are using it. It has been deleted by user Lectonar twice for being publicity, but he never replied to any of my two requests of reasons for deletion, and he blocked recreation now. Wirismath ( talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The three "keep" arguments presented in the AFD are clearly not based in policy. #1 is from someone who said "I believe every episode should have an article," which is in violation of WP:GNG as well as a longstanding precedent that only specific episodes warrant articles; #2 was a weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument saying "But other series have episode articles!"; and #3 argued that the episode was "memorable", a clearly subjective argument if there ever were one and a definite WP:ILIKEIT. The "delete" !voter and the nom are the only two people who acknowledge the article's actual shortcomings — namely, that it's merely a plot summary and trivia, and that no secondary sources could be found. I tried to AFD this a second time but decided a DRV would be better. I would suggest that this AFD be overturned and relisted to gather more arguments that are actually rooted in policy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
With the significantly diverging opinions presented at the AfD, and the discussion not being extended, I requested of the closing admin that the the article be relisted rather than merged, and as this was turned down I would like to formally request a DRV. meco ( talk) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The initial article was deleted on the pretext that there wasnt much notability in even the primary sources of the company listed, and also that the article which claimed to present a little history of how design engineering evolved in Pakistan didnot provide references to substantiate the statements. The said article was being made inline with wikipedia project Pakistan, but since the website didn't reflect the exact quantum of work and magnitude of impact and foreign assignments, the article was deleted, in successive attempts enough secondary references or notability could not be established. One of the administrators mentioned that the primary source doesnot show notability enough. It should be mentioned here that the website on which this article was initially based was updated till 2004 and current website (www.zishanengineers.com) has just been launched which includes latest update. The said entity went into major expansion following 2005 . Also the article , currently displayed on User:Uzairsyedahmed provides a very insightful description of "Design engineering consultancy" in Pakistan with the impact Pakistan's changing energy needs has had on it. It would be pointed out that secondary references for points that were mentioned at deletion are all covered here with reliable references. It is requested to allow this project now since it the conditions for deletion have changed and all the [citians needed] have been provided with references. -- Uzairsyedahmed ( talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (—Missing signature added per refactor)
I do know that wikipedia is not like the rest of the internet and the information presented in an article has certain rules. Please note that my article is discussing one of the largest engineering consultancies in Pakistan and focusing on how government's fluctuating policies effected them.The content I have listed is not taken verbatim from the internet, only references are taken. 1)First things first. You mentioned that an "undue amount of primary sources" are mentioned in the article. I stated that I kept the references stated in the first article which were perceived as primary references and added citations and thee secondary references. If you are still bother by all the "primary references" I can remove them and leave just the relevant references. Would that make the article better? I was under the impression that the primary references do not do much damage since secondary referencing as mentioned in the first review has been addressed. Please note that of the 29, over 14 references are cititations related to the article. 2) I had checked the GNG linked you mentioned and I can tell that the three secondary references I added, qualify to these categories. Reference no 12) infact satisfies most of the points. I hope you have had the chance to open it and read it. In any case, I will mention what the reference is. Lotte is a big Korean comglomerate which has openly acknowledged the said companies expertise and capabilities and what the nature of the project done was. This constitutes as secondary referencing and does establish notablity. Other than the three references, there are other references too like that of PEC, and IRL. Please help me understand if mentioning of minor sources negates the fact that a major reference has been made. My asking is, if I have 20 minor references/primary references does that negate the effect of the three secondary reference which would establish notablity? 3)Please stop speculating about more primary references will be added to the article if it is allowed to bring to the main space. I find this to be accusatory. I havent added any primary references, have just retained the current ones from the initial version of the article that was deleted and added ONLY secondary references to show notablity (which was the major objection). I again say, that if the unnecessary primary references are bothering the reader enough to not give weightage to the secondary references I would remove all primary references and keep the secondary ones. If you want, I can remove them right now, but please look past them and be rest assured that none of the primary references was "added" in the new article. The ones from before have only being retained. Just for the record, NONE of the primary sources had been added in this article on my page, so I hope that alleviates your fears of "endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space". Rest assured it wont be. I again say, I can remove all the primary references so that it helps the reader focus on the secondary sources. 4) This was my first article and I wanted to rectify it and do intend to write more articles. Please dont issue statements like "single purpose of Uzairsyedahmed was to get a Zishan Engineers article on wikipedia". My main intent was along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan which is to promote topics related to pakistan. There are a few articles on Design Engineering companies in Pakistan Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. both of which provide any idea about the history of the company in view with the Governmental policies which unlike the western world are very fickle in Pakistan. 5) Also note, FYI, none of these articles, Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. provide any secondary references to establish notablity. In the nespak article the sole reference is a primary reference. I can assure you that the article I wrote DOES provide secondary referencing and IS encyclopedic and DOES fall under the premise of Project Pakistan. The above two articles on Design Engineerign companies dont do any of this. I did point this thing earlier but I was told that "such a thing exists" isnt a criteria for new ones and efforts should be made to improve the Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. articles. I dont understand why should we "improve" those articles with all the deficiencies pointed out and exclude the much better and notable article that meets ur requirements of citations and secondary sources for notablity. I again say that secondary sources are present to establish notability and I can remove the primary references if they irk you. But just to deny the article a space in wikipedia because " an endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space" is really ridiculous. Apparently articles with just a sole primary source do not have that objection. IF primary sources negate the effect of NEW secondary source and deter the notability the try to establish, I can remove the old primary references (again no new one was added for you to conclude that "endless primary references would be added now" 6) My apologies for posting the messages twice on your talk page. I intended to do that for your convenience and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. I would post future discussions here only. 7) I feel the article is in much better shape than it was before, and if you want to have the primary references removed to put the secondary ones in limelight, I can do that. The article does cover important aspects of a quite notable organization in Pakistan and this is really inline with ProjectPakistan. In does establish notability and does it better than most articles I have seen for reference done for wikiProject Pakistan. Yes , there are certain things that I am still learning, but I have researched on article requirements quite well and to my conclusion, I have done it reasonably right and I believe it does warrant a place in wikipedia. I apologize for anything that may have seemed a bit sharp or offensive. That was not and will never be my intention. Uzairsyedahmed ( talk) 12:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.147.164 ( talk) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted out of process, just minutes after it was created despite a notice that the article was being worked on by two active contributors. An attempt to speak to the administrator who deleted it resulted in unprofessional "take it to DRV" when I pointed out he was acting out of process and simply "voting with the delete button". LikeJudasOfOld ( talk) 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 December 2010
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was restored after a previous DRV only to be speedily deleted by JzG who claims, falseley, that the article was the recreation of something previously deleted. This is patently untrue since Hoh received the Ridenhour Truthtelling prize after the initial deletion and that sourced content was added to the article. I leave it to the that admin to explain why they deleted the article and protected it from being recreated despite ample sourcing and well established notability for a prize-winner who continues to be covered by the media [53] for his role in the Afghan War opposition movement. FredoMurphy ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the solution to articles that get distorted by partisans is to delete them entirely, I think that should be noted in policy somewhere. Looking at the Google cached version it is obvious that someone has distorted the article using blogs. It's troubling to me that Guy then steps in with dishonest representations of the article history (instead of restoring a proper version) and deletes it entirely unilaterally. There is no dispute that the subject is notable, that he won a major prize, or that his views and opinions have been covered in reliable sources. This content is now lost to the encyclopedia because of these abusive actions and the failure to fix the harm that was done instead of compounding it. Discouraging. FredoMurphy ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was (I think) deleted for two reasons:
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 December 2010
6 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The majority of the argument for closing as a delete was lack of notability, had the closer investigated the sources provided by those requesting a keep deeper I feel that grounds for notability would have been established. In the closing statement the closer dismisses sources such as The Jew in American Cinema and Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen as being about Jewish characters and productions , however both sources go on at length about the persecution of Jewish Actors in the early part of the 20th century (both in totalitarian regimes across Eurasia and in Hollywood as well)- why some Jewish Actors were forced to change names and even resorted to Plastic Surgery to hide their Jewishness , and why those actors who opted to remain in Jewish Roles developed the stereotypical "Jewish Character" to promote their Jewishness. In the late 1940s and early 1950s this turned nasty with the "Outing" of several Jewish Actors (pg 40 Acting Jewish). Whilst during the later part of the 20th century, ethnicity and particularly Jewish culture became a thing of pride, it also became a time when Method acting came up with a formula for non-Jewish actors to play stereotypical Jewish; as a result Jewish Actors moved away from playing stereotypical Jewish characters and a much broader range of Jewish culture was exemplified by Jewish Actors whilst Non-Jews tended to play closer to the stereotype (or Jews played as non-jews). A lot of these (and other sources) confirm the assertion that "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." but this could be widened; that "the majority have acted in roles associated with Jewishness or significant Jewish history and/or culture." The article Secular Jewish culture acts as a head article for this, though it is in need of expansion in the Film section, though there is enough material and sources that a spinout into Secular Jewish acting could be considered. The list can be considered a list of notable proponents. I would also challenge the assertion by the closer that The large number of references to the article demonstrating notability "was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting" a number of the links already assert or question how the Actor's Jewishness has a notable effect on roles they have portrayed. I did suggest in the AFD that this should be held to a higher inclusion criteria limiting sources to those that show the person is notable for being a "Jewish Actor" but this does not seem to have been considered in the close. The existence of this notability already establishes that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because it is a Culturally Significant Phenomenon so whilst it was not specifically addressed by those asking for a keep we felt we were addressing it in our notability sourcing. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Endorse close. Everything the RFD nominator mentioned (the discrimination, the success, etc.) may belong in a prose article called something like "History of Jews in Acting". I tried really hard, but I just cannot see how a List of Jewish (and half-Jewish, and quarter-Jewish) actors has anything to do with what was just said. The list contained names, and dates of birth, and nothing else. Also, some of the people on there aren't even real actors (like Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg are mainly models). I also fail to see how the story of American Jewish actors has anything to do with actors from other countries (many of whom have never even been to the US.) If you want to write something about the "Jewish characters/stereotypes", or what Jewish actors have been through, go ahead, but the list has absolutely no relation to those issues. Which is why I voted delete in the first place.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus as nom, over this weekend I've chosen not to comment until now, as any attempt would again see Bulldog barking out minutiae that have no real bearing on this debate and just lead in circles. If the question is, did the closing administrator close correctly then again I stand by my original argument that all the closing arguments could were addressed by the keep side but were dismissed by the closing Admin in favour of Bulldog's yet again unproven claim of irrelevance. Even Analysing the sources here Bulldog continues to dismiss them despite the fact they clearly show this as a notable intersection on the basis that they don't then list every actor - that's not the point, the point is that this is a notable intersection - individuals on the list have separate sources showing that their individual inclusion is justified. The debate also raises the question of whether the notable intersection applies to all the entires. I think Postdlf sums up the reasoning keeping best above, despite Bulldogs further claims that these sources only justify creating a prose article (BTW Bulldog, claiming that proves this is a notable intersection exists per WP:N), however that line debate is similar to asking if a non-notable song by a notable artist belongs in their discography, we try to be as complete as possible even even if songs are not notable as belonging to that artist. Good sourcing should ensure that all entries are covered, as being Jewish Actors and if the source asserts the person is a Jewish Actor then it is identifying this as a notable fact about the person. I think there are issues that need to be dealt with regarding sourcing but they are not insurmountable and arguments made on that basis were rightly dismissed by the closing admin. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 09:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Here is what I wrote on
CSD G4 speedy delete admin Spartaz's home page:Frankly on the article PSR B1257+12 D it speaks of extrasolar dwarf planets. I had said this before, MY ARTICLE WAS ABOUT A CONCEPT. THE NAME DOES AND DID NOT MATTER! I know enough to know that something that is not a word should not be declared one. I'm not interested in an exact name. I never was! Enough with this overzealous inquisition and literalness! The page was said to be there during the debate about exodwarf planet. All I did was add content. -- Yisraelasper ( talk ) 05:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted by vote, not consensus. Vote misinterpreted. Proposer gave "kill OR RENAME". Seconder later modified opinion to "rename". I and another editor backed "rename". Two further editors backed "recategorise under top level" (ie Category:Music, although the top-level category is otherwise fully diffused). Two editors backed "delete" but did not respond to further discussion so not "consensual". Request for notice of deletion by me ignored. Result - many articles (eg Category:Music therapy) currently no longer categorised under "Music", which is absurd and counter-productive. Reasons given for deletion cannot be identified among possible reasons given on page. Restoration may, if necessary, be temporary. Redheylin ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was deleted immediately. The deletion was not under any deletion policies. The deleter supposedly thought that the page was a hoax but I assure you it was not. I think the problem is that I didn't have any sources for it. I have found sources now. Mwywy ( talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
I just closed this as delete based on giving less value to ILIKEIT keep votes vs well founded concerns about scope and propensity for BLP vios but the page had more then 5000 revisions which gives me pause as it needs a dev to delete this and would not be easy for an admin to undelete it should the deletion be challenged at a later date. I would appreciate review of my close prior to seeking deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My request is this article to be reviewed and if possible to go Live again. Here is the link for the improved article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. Thank you for your assistance! Chesszorro ( talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. However, I think the article was updated precisely and placed as a project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. It has updated information, sources, etc. We can consider that there are at least three sources to be independent of the subject. [77] [78] [79]. Please, let me know what else important requires to be updated.-- Chesszorro ( talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion. As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why was this article on a Polish power station speedy deleted? A power station with 600 MW generation power is surely not a candidate for a speedy deletion and has a great importance for the electricity supply of a country. There are many entries of comparable power stations in the Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 ( talk • contribs) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The category has over 49 pages that link to it. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:20am • 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting undeletion of these five categories:
CFD was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners. The deletion discussion focused primarily on "person" categories, not general categories relating to the subject matter itself, such as screenplays, films, etc. In addition, there is one category of people who specifically do not object to the award and even attended the ceremony in order to accept it. These categories should have been discussed separately and not part of the above deletion discussion. As I had thought that an admin would have closed the discussion as no consensus due to the equal amount of Keep comments, I did not request mid-deletion-discussion to have part of it separated regarding these five categories. I had thought the discussion would have been closed as no consensus, with the categories kept. At the very least, these five categories should have been discussed separately, as they are an entirely separate issue than the "person" issue of the other categories from the deletion discussion. Note that I attempted to raise the issue first with the admin that relisted, and later closed, the same deletion discussion, the admin refused to restore these particular five categories for a separate deletion discussion [80]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt ( talk)
I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion. As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Although three users !voted keep, none of their reasonings were based in non-free content policy, nor did they answer to the nomination. The first "keep" was the nominator essentially accusing me of bad faith, just like he posted on dozens of other images that were later deleted. The second only argues that the image depicts the casualties mentioned in the article. Depicting something mentioned in an article is not a valid reason to use a non-free image, per WP:NFCC. The third supported the second argument, and went on to say that because the organization RAWA looks for museums and art galleries to host photo exhibitions, it's okay to use their photos. Copyrighted art may be displayed in a gallery, that doesn't mean we can automatically include it on Wikipedia. And this isn't copyrighted art, it's a photo from a press agency (RAWA News), which is deemed unacceptable, it depicts a war, which is deemed unacceptable, and its omission isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article. The deletion discussion produced illegitimate reasons to keep non-free content. Consensus doesn't trump non-free image policy or copyright. Swarm X 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Relist The discussion itself does seem faulty, the arguments given for keeping being rather weak - argument by assertion, talk of copyright law when that's not relevant - wikipedia's standards differ to copyright law, strange assertion regarding what the image depicts and a rather vague argument about commercial value. Your listing however wasn't the greatest either with basic assertion which could have done with being expanded upon. This looks like a discussion which needed more input rather than being closed one way or the other. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment from closing admin - I did in fact consider the arguments of the nominator. In short, I'll respond to each point the nominator pulls up:
I really don't particularly care either way if the nomination is relisted, but I wanted to illustrate how I came to the decision in light of the comments from the community. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's my job, to interpret the community's consensus. And the community was saying the critical commentary was sufficient. It looks completely legit to me. As for the dead part, I only inserted that to distinguish it from violations of NFCC1 - which almost universally disallows images of living persons. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
31 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm writing bios on women composers and I have primary sources that I could add. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'd like to use what was there already. Primary sources are not that difficult to find for her. Thanks. Pkeets ( talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted claiming "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." This article is about a publishing company and presents two instances -- producing a book trailer directed by a notable filmaker and putting on an academic conference -- that indicate why it is important.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedy Restore. Passes WP:PORNBIO, because she won an AVN Award. Links: IMBD & AVN Awards site. -- Hixteilchen ( talk) 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Westbrook Technologies is a major document management software company which has received awards and recognition from various sources. It has been deleted for advertising/promotion, however I feel that the sources cited and language used show the importance of Westbrook Technologies in the document management industry. I have discussed with the editor who deleted, but he/she has not responded from my further questions and debate, giving me no further explanation. Please reconsider the deletion of the article (perhaps restoring the article for editors to see and discuss) or please inform me how I can edit it for approval. Odonnetp ( talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 December 2010
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page 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. |
27 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Administrator closed discussion as keep (free), claiming that the text in the image was not subject to copyright protection because "malware is not afforded copyright protection." When I asked her to reconsider and cite authority for this, the administrator responded saying that "any person who claimed to own the copyright of this image would likely be prosecuted under laws regarding computer crimes." I am still not convinced that something along the lines of unclean hands allows us to disregard copyrights on images like this one or be compatible with CC-BY-SA. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Faulty close. Clearly no consensus. Add to this closing admin's lack of rationale for the decision. meco ( talk) 08:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
note: I'm not that good with Wiki-formatting; someone who is good at it, please fix. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians The above AFD was closed with an incorrect assumption: The result was delete. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC) There are several problems with this AFD. I will start with the most-obvious: 1. "It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable." This is FICTION! The GRG has been recognized by major sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, USA Today, etc. For example, check out this article here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip Note the listing of the Gerontology Research Group, along with Guinness World Records. Thus, the above conclusion is wrong on two counts: A. It fails to consider the availability of reliable sources B. It passes judgment on the reliability of outside sources, even though reliability of the GRG is also established by other notable outside sources. I doubt any of you would argue against USA Today or the Wall Street Journal being non-notable. 2. If this were the only issue. Sadly, it is not. JJBulten has indicated a plot to delete all articles on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" sources, because he believes they conflict with his belief that humans can live to 969 because the Bible says that Methuselah lived to 969. Aside from the fact that many Christians argue that Biblical longevity is not comparable to longevity today, what is at issue here is not JJ's belief but whether Wikipedia follows correct Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR, which mean that mainstream, reliable outside sources should establish or disestablish notability, not one's personal agenda. 3. JJBulten has argued, online, even on Wikipedia!, that he plans to delete articles such as this first, and then argue that the List of European supercentenarians is biased because there are no articles on "minorities." Talk about incredulity! So JJ targeted minority articles first, because they were easier to delete, then he plans to hypocritically argue that the European articles are biased? 4. Can anyone seriously argue that geographic organization by continent is a bad idea? Ryoung122 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A. Most centenarian articles are on persons who were already notable, but for whom great age conferred additional notability (such as Sir Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885). Most supercentenarian articles are on persons who are notable for great age only. B. The USA, for example, has about 96,000 centenarians but only about 50-70 supercentenarians. Only about 1 in 1000 (if that) centenarians are 110+ at any one time. Thus, supercentenarians are several orders of magnitude rarer, and their age verification becomes paramount to both scientific and general public (Guinness Book) acceptance as "recordholders". Since age verification is tied to the system of recordkeeping in a given nation, it makes sense to organize cases by nation (much like a football team article will have a list of all the players on the team, by team). In this case, the "team" is the "national" team. As for continent-wide inquiry, it must be admitted that most of the cases come from Europe and North America, Japan and Australia. That said, it is incorrect to assume that validated cases cannot come from Africa or South America. Examples of verified cases from Colombia, Ecuador, or Cape Verde can help encourage a wider appreciation that, where-ever systems of recordkeeping are in good order, all humans live to the same ages (about 110-115, maximum, very rarely above that). A lot of this should be thought of as less of Wiki policy and more of reflecting outside sources. Consider, for example, that the field of longevity research into supercentenarians has had to battle myths of localized longevity, or the idea that certain groups of people live longer in certain areas. Thus, there is a stated need to show that, in fact, geography has relatively little bearing on maximum life span. Some have claimed that "mountain air" and "clean water" are responsible for people living to 140+ in places like Vilcabamba...ideas like that have been debunked. Instead, we find that genetics, not region, is paramount. Mitoyo Kawate survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to live to 114. Tase Matsunaga lived to 114 in the biggest metro area in the world, Tokyo. If we take a look at the continent-wide records: Europe: 122 (Jeanne Calment, 1997) North America: 119 (Sarah Knauss, 1999) South America: 116 (Maria Capovilla, 2006) Asia: 116 (Tane Ikai, 2005) Africa: 114 (Anne Primout, 2005) Australia: 114 (Christina Cock, 2002) We find that there is a base minimum (114). Without Jeanne Calment, the outlier, Europe's record would be 115. Without Sarah Knauss, North America's record would be 117 I think Wikipedia needs to do a little more qualitative assessment here. Ryoung122 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to either relist, or non-consensus. Actually Sjakkallei could simply revert his own close--I think that is always permissible. The arb com has no authority about the reliability of sources or the acceptability of articles, so its conclusions do not seem relevant here. . DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The administrator who closed this (and similar) AFD's on supercentenarian articles (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii) Sandstein, listed a rationale for deletion that is contrary to the evidence presented in the AFD discussion. 1. Self-published sources: did Tase Matsunaga publish her own sources? Certainly not. She was covered in reliable, cited, outside sources. Therefore, the rationale for the AFD decision was incorrect. It should also be noted that this article was part of a massive 9-article "deletion" attack by JJBulten, who has confessed online to targeting supercentenarian articles for deletion, with an agenda. To call someone out for lying and cabalism, when those accusations are proven and sourced to online sources, is not "inappropriate conduct." A referee throwing a flag for a foul being committed is not the committer of the foul. Thus, this and similar articles need a second go-through. 2. Tase Matsunaga was Japan's oldest person and her final age (114 years 191 days) is higher than any verified supercentenarian currently living. Notability is not temporary; this is not a "one event." There were reports, for example, of her gaining the title, then reports of dying. That's two events, at a minimum. Thus, the second rationale for deletion is also incorrect. A third reason: JJBulten violated Wiki policies and decorum on AFD, including mass-spamming, mass-nomination of articles, voting for his own self, and recruiting/canvassing to get "votes." The article itself lasted for years and years. Does notability suddenly evaporate, like current events passing? I think not. A fourth reason: JJBulten has accused articles on supercentenarians of being biased in favor of Europeans, but this is after he targeted for deletion articles such as List of African supercentenarians, List of South American supercentenarians, and then supercentenarians from Japan. Thus, this person had nominated this article in bad faith, and got this through the process as if it were a 'vote'. It is not. Thus, the process needs to be reviewed. -- Ryoung122 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Did you know that the average world's oldest person keeps the title for 1.12 years? That's a lot more rare than, for example, a baseball player. 2. Yet, we have articles on ball players who had only 1 major-league at-bat, ever, and by default they are "notable". 3. The rationale behind the deletion was incorrect. 4. Another option, to merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians, was not considered. ' 5. Notability for extreme age alone can be established by outside sources, not one's personal opinion of whether persons are notable by age. 6. Japan, with 127+ million persons, tracks 100% of their citizens and "confers" the title of "Oldest Person in Japan", thus establishing outside-source notability. Ryoung122 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note that JJBulten, AFTER agreeing to cooperate/attempt to find consensus, underhandedly opened the ArbCom discussion when I said that I would be AWAY from Wikipedia for a month in order to concentrate on finishing my Master's degree in history, which I did complete December 15, 2010. I see no reason to wait for the ArbCom results. The ArbCom was a political-religious vendetta that seeks to block/reduce the scientific position on supercentenarians on Wikipedia, in favor of non-mainstream religious fanaticism. Nominating sourced and vetted articles such as Tase Matsunaga of Japan, then claiming the sources don't exist when they do, or then claiming the sources are not reliable when they are, is typical of the inappropriate behavior that, indeed, should be discussed at ArbCom. But what can be discussed here is that: A. Sources exist B. Notability is established by outside sources C. A compromise, "merge" option seems to often be overlooked by those who try to make this a chess game Was Tase Matsunaga reported to be Japan's oldest person by the government of Japan? Yes. Was Tase Matsunaga featured in continuing, multiple media coverage that existed outside of the local area of interest? Yes. Does Tase Matsunaga rank in the top 50 verified persons all-time, as established by outside sources? Yes. Was proper consideration given to adequately notify the article creator of the need to "upgrade" the article? No. Were attempts made to tag the article before it became an article on a "hit list" by JJBulten? No. Is clear and convincing evidence that JJBulten nominated this article for deletion in bad faith, as part of his plan to delete all supercentenarian biographies? Yes. Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to undo the AFD, restore the article, and go through the process fairly. Ryoung122 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
In explaining this close, I'll start with a few headcounts, with the caveats that (a) headcounts aren't conclusive in closing either an XfD or a DRV; and (b) my headcounts might be a little inaccurate. The headcount at this DRV is 42-23 to endorse. Those kinds of numbers would generally need to be associated with a significant imbalance in the quality of arguments to warrant anything other than an endorse close. Two other counts are worth considering. First, if we exclude all participants in the TfD who !voted in favour of their position at this DRV, the headcount is 29-13. Secondly, and quite tellingly, six editors "crossed the floor" at this DRV to endorse the close that went against their keep !votes. Only one editor crossed the floor in the other direction. The above three counts together point to a consensus to endorse, subject to there being a significant imbalance in the quality of arguments that would warrant a different close. The "overturn" side put forward the following general arguments at this DRV. This summary is necessarily brief and cannot be comprehensive:
There were good arguments raised to overturn. But they didn't influence the discussion in such a way as to affect the consensus. Notably, even after the few overturn !votes were made that attempted to engage with the reasons for the close, the endorse !votes kept coming, and if anything at an increasing rate (including those from non-participants in the TfD and those who "crossed the floor"). Accordingly, those arguments can't be said to have anything like consensus support. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
The administrator who closed this TFD has obviously put a lot of thought into their close, but the simple fact is that the !votes on it are pretty much a dead heat, I don't see how this can be a delete close when it is clearly a No Consensus. They've already stated that the deletes are between 65 and 68, keeps at 67 - that is not a delete close. No way. I ask for this Deletion to be overturned forthwith, it is not valid to close in this manner when votes are this tight. Barking Fish 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place in the discussion to put this (I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages- I've forgot a lot of the procedures), but I have to say this needs to be an "overturn due to no consensus reached". The admin went on a vote, and not the merit of the points put foward, and keep would STILL have won if they counted IPs. The expand tag is one I use all the time, like many other editors, if I see something wrong with an article I just tag and let the hard-core editors sort it out. This means that now I (and many others) will have to spend ages doing what the average editor shouldn't be expected to do (go through the whole thing and analyse exactly what needs changing, you might as well just do it). Mod MMG ( User Page) Reply on my talkpage. 05:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Weak overturn to no consensus. This is a very difficult one to judge for me, especially having participated in the original deletion discussion; at the time I thought that the conclusion (based on my mental tallying of !votes) would be "no consensus" - notwithstanding my personal support for deletion. I have to say I was very surprised to see it closed as "delete", and also surprised to see the logic and rationale for this. However, I thought it was a bold decision and one that was clearly in line with the accepted principle, rarely implemented in practice, that consensus is not equal to vote counting. Let me say, I think this decision is historic. If it is allowed to stand, it has the potential to break through a problem we have had for while: achieving consensus with mass participation discussions. As someone else noted, these inevitably end up as 50:50 votes, with little actual discussion between participants. My other concern, however, is just as strong: this decision will end up increasing the power of Admins, who will inevitably move away from a role of implementing community consensus and towards a role of arbitrating discussions. That, I believe, is a negative trend that would extend the power structures on Wikipedia and move us away from the flat structured community that has been the foundation of our success. As someone else said, this is about introducing !supervotes, and this isn't consistent with the established consensus among users for what the role of admins should be. Therefore, I would err on the side of caution and say it should be overturned, with the alternative solutions for dealing with the problem addressed instead. AndrewRT( Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page meets notability requirements. Slugguitar ( talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion); (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal
wrongful speedy of referenced blp. Occoquan ( talk) 16:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Self DRV; administrator User:Rich Farmbrough, involved with the RfD, overturned close without discussion, so am double-checking that close was right here. I don't see anything wrong with it though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Buckshot06 used his administrative privilege to delete Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre articles without reviewing the case, participating in or awaiting the outcome of discussions on the talk pages. The deletion, as admitted by deleting administrator here, was carried out solely at the suggestion of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom case participant, currently under editing restrictions per A-A Arbcom, User:MarshallBagramyan. Two administrators at WP:AN already opined here and here that the deletion of articles did not follow the appropriate procedure. I kindly request that the articles are restored and the proper procedure is followed for either deleting topical pages without selection of backgrounds or keeping them. ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The debate was
relisted after seven days with a
note reading, "consensus split, pointless NCing this one." I would agree that there was neither any consensus to keep nor any to delete at that point.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There's an editor, User:Lolox76, who seems to be hot under the collar about the deletion of Artur Balder which seemingly arose out of the AfD for Curdy. Input from the upset Lolox76 appears on User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Deletion_of_new_article_Artur_Balder. The gist of the case appears to be "A simple Google search would proof evidence of his work as a well known writer, and the article at the english wikipedia Little Spain recelntly appeared sustains enormous critical attention evoked by the documentary that discovers a district of Manhattan." I remain unconvinced, but I had two minutes to spare and thought I'd help the complainant by putting this deletion review together. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them: El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1 On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links: http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author: http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15 The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain: The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too: htt://www.widukind.eu References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain": Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain. The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english: Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune: http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105 And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure. The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/ Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one. I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past. Lolox76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
-- Lolox76 ( talk) 09:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Now meets WP:CORP Cdulaney ( talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 December 2010
20 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural nomination. This article was speedied by Orangemike ( talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Quuxplusone ( talk · contribs) has been urging me to undelete it and take it to AfD instead. I have no strong opinion on the article itself; I think the A7 was reasonable, and I also think the request to grant a full AfD is reasonable. But rather than taking it on myself to undo the administrative actions of another admin I think it would be better to go through proper channels, so I'm bringing the request here: please undo the speedy deletion and take this to AfD. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was closed by a non-admin and was a contentious one that clearly falls outside the boundary of appropriate closures for a non-admin. this non-admin even it came to close to delete but does not appear to give good enough reason why it falls short. the discussion failed to yield substantial evidence of indepth coverage of this topic. LibStar ( talk) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is pretty straightforward I think. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It is a new channel not a rebranded C4. C4 will continue and is moving to replace C42. Socks 01 07:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page had no real third party sourced when nominated, when the initial votes were made. I then added several good citations. Sadly sock puppets got involved in voting, and one person kept advocating for deletion. Initially the page was found to have "no concensus", but then one keep vote was found to be a sock puppet, making the delete outnumber the keeps, so the page was decision was changed to delete by the admin. Still, I feel it has sources now, so despite some initial "delete" votes from when it had no sources, it should be acceptable as an article now. Mathewignash ( talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No reason to restore an article about something without significant coverage. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) How about these articles: http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/botcon05-review.htm and http://mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/airastro-review.htm Mathewignash ( talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
See, it's run by Fun Publications, the company responsible for Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this was addressed at the AfD that no sources have Transformers: Timelines as their main topic. I'd like to point out again that nobody seems to have found third-party sources regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories. Those stories make up the bulk of Timelines fiction, but they don't seem to receive any reliable third-party coverage whatsoever. NotARealWord ( talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
NEW SOURCES
The film is notable and has reliable sources now, a selection of which you can find attached. Deleting admin Ron Ritzman suggested to open a Deletion Review.
JUST INÈS featured in German national broadcast:
http://www.swr.de/tv/-/id=2798/did=7224930/pv=video/nid=2798/c6wa5g/index.html Marquitox ( talk) 11:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The deletes clearly outnumber the keeps. In fact, there are 7 of them. But as the AFD was coming toward a close, there were attempts made to address the issues in the article that lead to the deletion proposal. Toward the end, there was one keep and one person who offered to change a delete to a keep if these changes were made. Someone was already in the process of working on adding sources from long in the past that they claimed existed. I, myself, tried to offer a compromise solution. The main problem is simply that "time ran out." There was no time to discuss what to do following these changes, which I did not even get to see myself. The AFD reached 7 days in length, and therefore, a closing admin came along, saw all the deletes, probably thought automatically this was something to delete, and quickly closed it as such. Evidence of this can be seen in that the admin simply wrote "The result of delete" and nothing more. This page should be restored, at least for now, to allow more time to discuss. Xyz7890 ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article is part of student colaboration project on Serbian Wikipedia. The user who created i mistakenly made it here, who please undelete the article and move it to his userspace. It is urgent, today is deadline for evaluating student works. -- Bojan Talk 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No notification to my talk page, no valid reason to delete beyond deleter saying rationale wasn't good enough, the person is dead. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The BlowUpRadio.com page was deleted for being not being significant. Every line of the page had been attributed to a source. The website/internet station is the only 24/7 swtation to play NJ bands, has been around 10 years, has helped break many well known bands, and done benefits to help the community and non-profit organizations (again all attributed on the page). I ask that the page be reinstated as it is clearly of significance. Also, a link and mention to BlowUpRadio.com was deleted from the NJ Music page as being spam, [43] even though BlowUpRadio.com is the only station that plays NJ music 24/7, and has been doing so for 10 years. I do not understand how that reference is considered spam. Please reinstate the mention and link. -- ; Talk 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)— Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
First off, it's starting to look like it's only ever Cirt who closes these aircrash Afds - that is surely grounds for reviewing his decisions to make sure they are correct in terms of the community's view of these debates, as from where I'm standing, his closing statements, which are at least now progressing beyond the no statement at all approach to closing, don't look similar at all to the detailed expressed thought process of other admins who have closed them in the past w.r.t how they read these debates - namely what constitutes a good and bad argument, and how editors can and can't show that EVENT is met. In this specific closure, Cirt simply just makes a vague statement that there is a "strong consensus", so we can start with that - how exactly were the delete arguments rebutted, for example 'Wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses'? He doesn't say. What did he think of the accusations and defences of argument by assertion in that regard? Again, he doesn't say. Secondly, he goes on to say there were "editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - well, from where I'm sitting, ignoring the immediate 2003 news report, which surely every can see does not meet EVENT on it's own, then this must amount to the 2006 NTSB report, and the one news article from 2006 about the report coming out. So, is he endorsing the keeper's view that all you need to write an aircrash article that meets EVENT is just an NTSB report, or not? Is he endorsing the idea that this one 2006 news report represented 'significant, extensive, in-depth, ongoing' coverage that meets both GNG and EVENT, or not? It's worth clarifying that point at least, because concluding that NTSB reports are defacto N-worthy for EVENT has huge implications, as it makes every single crash automatically notable - a very obvious violation of WP:NOT if you ask me. And if he didn't mean just the NTSB report and it's one piece of (trade press) news coverage, is he referring to the book sources presented? If so, why does he not comment on the fact that the keepers didn't present any evidence that they contained anything about the crash, apart from a list entry? Even if we are (completely artificially and unjustifiably) restricting this notion of aircrash notability to 'hull losses', why did Cirt not comment on the complete silence that met the presentation of actual figures which show just how many crashes per year per one aircraft type would meet this notion of notability, and the obvious implications? Frankly, precisely because this whole topic is in dispute, with contradictory views on both sides, a closure that actually addresses the specific points raised is beyond necessary by now. If Afd closers don't actually start to close them with actual reference to the actual arguments made and disputed, then these articles are going to continue to be written, and Afd'd, not least because the attempted guideline to settle this dispute, AIRCRASH, has not got any further than 'it must meet the GNG, EVENT, and NOT#NEWS', and editors still have frankly, massively different ideas about how you meet those for aircrashes - as you can see in this idea that an NTSB report is a secondary source, and is all that is required in terms of WP:N - at the very least that is what Cirt should have commented on, not give vague statements (actually, stating 'strong consensus' means that the delete arguments were utterly shit - so that requires some explanation - exceptional claims and exceptional evidence and all that.) Frankly, when you actually look at his closure - "The result was keep. Significant consensus is present for Keep, with editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - if you actually go and look at some of them, you could copy and paste that into any past aircrash Afd for any article except the most absolutely trivial of incidents which simply don't make the news at all, and it wouldn't sound like it contradicts the 'consensus' one bit - well, if you read AIRCRASH, that is quite obviously not what the purpose of that essay or even Wikipedia actually is, for some pretty obvious reasons, starting with WP:NOT and working downwards. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The argument for deletion were many errors and sources from 50 years after the fact. While the details of the defeat of the Prussian army by the Turks may be debatable, the battle itself is documented. The report of A.J.Gross-Hoffinger (Leipzig, Nachdruuck, 1847) Die Geschichte des Joseph II (a scanned version can be seen at Josephs des Zweiten, but it is rather difficult to read because of the gotic alfabet) may not be of confidence, and the events narrated by him are probably bogus. But there is a letter from Joseph II to the first minister Kaunitz (Austrian Archives, Lettres d'empereur Josph II à prince Kaunitz) Joseph writes "The disaster our army has suffered, because the cowardliness of some units, is at the moment imponderable. The panic spread everywhere, in the heart of army, in the heart of Caransebes people, and by all the way to Temesvar, what is about ten leagues (about 40 km). I cannot describe in words the violence and the terrible carnage that happened." (translation from a translation from French to Portuguese of the letter is mine). The details of the reason for the defeat, like the Gypsy camp and the liquor, and the dispute for the liquor probably are not true, but the battle is documented, as is the defeat, and it is documented by a very good primary source, Joseph II himself. About the two modern books cited, The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders by Potomac Books does not cite sources, and its publisher is not well seen, and the other book Hinge Factor by Eric Durschmied was published by the now closed Arcade Publishing, but there is at least two other books: The history of nations. Vol 14 by Henry Cabot Lodge published by P. F. Collier & son in 1907 and Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century. Vol 4 of Sir Edward Cust published by J. Murray in 1862. There is still a description of the campaign and the defeat in an Scotish Magazine in 1788: Scots Magazine 1788. It seems the the battle itself, and the defeat is documented, or better, the panic and deaths during the retreat is well documented, and the later chase of the Prussian army by the Turksish army, while is questionable that we can call this "battle" it seems that something very wrong happened in the retreat, and call this event "battle of Karansebes" seems logical, there was an important defeat. This event is documented by the letter of Joseph II, the press of the time, and at least two books besides of the cited in the deletion talk (I am researching what were the sources of these two books), this seems to corroborate the A.J.Gross-Hoffinger report, at least in the part about the retreat an the deaths, but none of them cite the event of the liquor that really seems like a hoax. -- Agranero ( talk) 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Connexion.org has grown in reach considerably since this page was removed and given the other sites that have pages, I'd like to ask that this one be restored so that I may update it and make it relevant with citations. Alexa rank 57,830 with 145 sites linking in. I tried contacting the deleting admin but didn't receive a response. Laddbosworth ( talk) 17:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Couple of mentions as a starting point:
Laddbosworth ( talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Withdrawn, see below)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The closing admin stated that there were no keep !votes, however my stated "oppose" to deletion was intended as such. I'm not sure if this will or should overturn deletion but the deletion rationale is not correct. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Their picoprojector won awards at CES this year, and there are articles all over the place about SHOWWX+, the new version. They have a contract with the U.S. military to develop wearable displays, and they are on the stock market with pretty decent profits. It's only a matter of time before this company is a household name, I can't understand why there is no page because I'd like to find out more. 192.198.151.36 ( talk) 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
13 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am trying to fill in the Wisconsin gaps in two Wikipedia lists, List of streetcar systems in the United States and List of Wisconsin railroads by writing pages where they do not exist. (see my talk for details). I started with the small Waupaca system because it was easier. Only to see it deleted because it was small! The whole point of the exercise is completeness. The other rational for deletion was that there are few results of a Google search. However almost all material predates the internet, does that lessen its value? To make information available online is part of the point of writing the article. Every railroad line ever built in the UK is described on Wikipedia. The completeness of the project is a wonder to behold. I suppose I could go though them deleting the small ones now no longer operating on the grounds of none importance but what would be the point? So what was the point of deleting the Waupaca system? -- Wickifrank ( talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 December 2010
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article has had a turbulent history, with an AfD marred by SPA activity, a lot of agitation suggesting off-wiki canvassing, two previous DRVs on August 4 and September 26, and repeated reposting which led me to salt the title. However, over the last weeks the incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin has been seriously improved. In my opinion the references are now good enough for the article to be returned to the main space, but in view of the history I bring it here for the community's view. JohnCD ( talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Jpgordon (
talk ·
contribs) deleted this user talk page of a banned sockpuppeteer (renamed to
Kwork2 (
talk ·
contribs)) per
WP:CSD#U1, which however explicitly excludes user talk pages. No other speedy deletion criteria apply. In particular, WP:RTV is not a valid reason for deletion by Jpgordon. A recent RFC concluded (and WP:RTV#Deletion of user talk pages confirms) that user talk pages of vanishing users may only exceptionally be deleted by decision of the renaming bureaucrat. Jpgordon is not a bureaucrat. Moreover, the page was already deleted once in 2008 per WP:RTV and then restored because the user subsequently reappeared, which indicates that this user's vanishings tend not to be permanent. Finally, the user continues to make much personal information public at commons:User:Malcolm Schosha and meta:User:Malcolm Schosha, which also makes any claims that he wants to disassociate himself from his Wikipedia activity less credible. The speedy deletion was therefore procedurally flawed and should be overturned. The page may then either be listed at WP:MFD so that the community can discuss whether there are any good reasons to delete it, or the renaming bureaucrat can make that decision per RTV. (There are reasonable arguments for deletion, which do not convince me fully, but in any case it is not Jpgordon's job to make that decision.) Relevant discussion is at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork and at User talk:Jpgordon#User talk:Malcolm_Schosha. The most recent deletion by JzG ( talk · contribs) was merely a redirect to the renamed user talk page. Sandstein 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 ( talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No consensus. The article was nominated for deletion on grounds of failing notability guidelines. Since then, the notability of the subject has been established with several independent sources listed on the AFD page. This has been acknowledged even by the editor who originally listed the article for deletion. [49] 78.131.80.59 ( talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Colonel Warden's links / reason, which the administrator Sandstein preferred over to the majority's given opposite statements, lead to books of two non-reliable authors. And I'm strongly disagree with Sandstein's opinion that no convincing reasons for deletion were provided, they were provided by several users there. And I'm raising article's authors politcal views because it's an ISSUE here, usual people wouldn't try to blame the entire group of people but instead focus on individuals that do it without labeling others for their attitudes / crimes. We already have similar and a highly controversial article here, do we really need another one which undoubtedly was made to make bias against immigrants, here's an example from this article "and counting on the amount of money criminal immigrants cost the society has been banned with the explanation that "...you cannot calculate the value of human lives"." Note the tone it was made of. It's a clear pushing of views. And as administrator sees these books as convincing for keeping, so what now if some authors wrote about crimes by giving their books almost identical titles - that should be enough to create an article here under this title? No, there are many other aspects which should be taken into account when approaching this debate. And users from first discussion for deletion and the second gave reasonable statements why this article shouldn't be under its currently given title and that it can't be neutral as the title itself prohibits it by its own title and how it puts the question, don't disregard them so fast like the admin Sandstein who found them all unconvincing. Userpd ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 December 2010
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article contains valid information for a software widely used in many European countries and references to the pages of the several ministries of education who are using it. It has been deleted by user Lectonar twice for being publicity, but he never replied to any of my two requests of reasons for deletion, and he blocked recreation now. Wirismath ( talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The three "keep" arguments presented in the AFD are clearly not based in policy. #1 is from someone who said "I believe every episode should have an article," which is in violation of WP:GNG as well as a longstanding precedent that only specific episodes warrant articles; #2 was a weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument saying "But other series have episode articles!"; and #3 argued that the episode was "memorable", a clearly subjective argument if there ever were one and a definite WP:ILIKEIT. The "delete" !voter and the nom are the only two people who acknowledge the article's actual shortcomings — namely, that it's merely a plot summary and trivia, and that no secondary sources could be found. I tried to AFD this a second time but decided a DRV would be better. I would suggest that this AFD be overturned and relisted to gather more arguments that are actually rooted in policy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
With the significantly diverging opinions presented at the AfD, and the discussion not being extended, I requested of the closing admin that the the article be relisted rather than merged, and as this was turned down I would like to formally request a DRV. meco ( talk) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The initial article was deleted on the pretext that there wasnt much notability in even the primary sources of the company listed, and also that the article which claimed to present a little history of how design engineering evolved in Pakistan didnot provide references to substantiate the statements. The said article was being made inline with wikipedia project Pakistan, but since the website didn't reflect the exact quantum of work and magnitude of impact and foreign assignments, the article was deleted, in successive attempts enough secondary references or notability could not be established. One of the administrators mentioned that the primary source doesnot show notability enough. It should be mentioned here that the website on which this article was initially based was updated till 2004 and current website (www.zishanengineers.com) has just been launched which includes latest update. The said entity went into major expansion following 2005 . Also the article , currently displayed on User:Uzairsyedahmed provides a very insightful description of "Design engineering consultancy" in Pakistan with the impact Pakistan's changing energy needs has had on it. It would be pointed out that secondary references for points that were mentioned at deletion are all covered here with reliable references. It is requested to allow this project now since it the conditions for deletion have changed and all the [citians needed] have been provided with references. -- Uzairsyedahmed ( talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (—Missing signature added per refactor)
I do know that wikipedia is not like the rest of the internet and the information presented in an article has certain rules. Please note that my article is discussing one of the largest engineering consultancies in Pakistan and focusing on how government's fluctuating policies effected them.The content I have listed is not taken verbatim from the internet, only references are taken. 1)First things first. You mentioned that an "undue amount of primary sources" are mentioned in the article. I stated that I kept the references stated in the first article which were perceived as primary references and added citations and thee secondary references. If you are still bother by all the "primary references" I can remove them and leave just the relevant references. Would that make the article better? I was under the impression that the primary references do not do much damage since secondary referencing as mentioned in the first review has been addressed. Please note that of the 29, over 14 references are cititations related to the article. 2) I had checked the GNG linked you mentioned and I can tell that the three secondary references I added, qualify to these categories. Reference no 12) infact satisfies most of the points. I hope you have had the chance to open it and read it. In any case, I will mention what the reference is. Lotte is a big Korean comglomerate which has openly acknowledged the said companies expertise and capabilities and what the nature of the project done was. This constitutes as secondary referencing and does establish notablity. Other than the three references, there are other references too like that of PEC, and IRL. Please help me understand if mentioning of minor sources negates the fact that a major reference has been made. My asking is, if I have 20 minor references/primary references does that negate the effect of the three secondary reference which would establish notablity? 3)Please stop speculating about more primary references will be added to the article if it is allowed to bring to the main space. I find this to be accusatory. I havent added any primary references, have just retained the current ones from the initial version of the article that was deleted and added ONLY secondary references to show notablity (which was the major objection). I again say, that if the unnecessary primary references are bothering the reader enough to not give weightage to the secondary references I would remove all primary references and keep the secondary ones. If you want, I can remove them right now, but please look past them and be rest assured that none of the primary references was "added" in the new article. The ones from before have only being retained. Just for the record, NONE of the primary sources had been added in this article on my page, so I hope that alleviates your fears of "endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space". Rest assured it wont be. I again say, I can remove all the primary references so that it helps the reader focus on the secondary sources. 4) This was my first article and I wanted to rectify it and do intend to write more articles. Please dont issue statements like "single purpose of Uzairsyedahmed was to get a Zishan Engineers article on wikipedia". My main intent was along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan which is to promote topics related to pakistan. There are a few articles on Design Engineering companies in Pakistan Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. both of which provide any idea about the history of the company in view with the Governmental policies which unlike the western world are very fickle in Pakistan. 5) Also note, FYI, none of these articles, Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. provide any secondary references to establish notablity. In the nespak article the sole reference is a primary reference. I can assure you that the article I wrote DOES provide secondary referencing and IS encyclopedic and DOES fall under the premise of Project Pakistan. The above two articles on Design Engineerign companies dont do any of this. I did point this thing earlier but I was told that "such a thing exists" isnt a criteria for new ones and efforts should be made to improve the Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. articles. I dont understand why should we "improve" those articles with all the deficiencies pointed out and exclude the much better and notable article that meets ur requirements of citations and secondary sources for notablity. I again say that secondary sources are present to establish notability and I can remove the primary references if they irk you. But just to deny the article a space in wikipedia because " an endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space" is really ridiculous. Apparently articles with just a sole primary source do not have that objection. IF primary sources negate the effect of NEW secondary source and deter the notability the try to establish, I can remove the old primary references (again no new one was added for you to conclude that "endless primary references would be added now" 6) My apologies for posting the messages twice on your talk page. I intended to do that for your convenience and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. I would post future discussions here only. 7) I feel the article is in much better shape than it was before, and if you want to have the primary references removed to put the secondary ones in limelight, I can do that. The article does cover important aspects of a quite notable organization in Pakistan and this is really inline with ProjectPakistan. In does establish notability and does it better than most articles I have seen for reference done for wikiProject Pakistan. Yes , there are certain things that I am still learning, but I have researched on article requirements quite well and to my conclusion, I have done it reasonably right and I believe it does warrant a place in wikipedia. I apologize for anything that may have seemed a bit sharp or offensive. That was not and will never be my intention. Uzairsyedahmed ( talk) 12:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.147.164 ( talk) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted out of process, just minutes after it was created despite a notice that the article was being worked on by two active contributors. An attempt to speak to the administrator who deleted it resulted in unprofessional "take it to DRV" when I pointed out he was acting out of process and simply "voting with the delete button". LikeJudasOfOld ( talk) 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 December 2010
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was restored after a previous DRV only to be speedily deleted by JzG who claims, falseley, that the article was the recreation of something previously deleted. This is patently untrue since Hoh received the Ridenhour Truthtelling prize after the initial deletion and that sourced content was added to the article. I leave it to the that admin to explain why they deleted the article and protected it from being recreated despite ample sourcing and well established notability for a prize-winner who continues to be covered by the media [53] for his role in the Afghan War opposition movement. FredoMurphy ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the solution to articles that get distorted by partisans is to delete them entirely, I think that should be noted in policy somewhere. Looking at the Google cached version it is obvious that someone has distorted the article using blogs. It's troubling to me that Guy then steps in with dishonest representations of the article history (instead of restoring a proper version) and deletes it entirely unilaterally. There is no dispute that the subject is notable, that he won a major prize, or that his views and opinions have been covered in reliable sources. This content is now lost to the encyclopedia because of these abusive actions and the failure to fix the harm that was done instead of compounding it. Discouraging. FredoMurphy ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was (I think) deleted for two reasons:
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 December 2010
6 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The majority of the argument for closing as a delete was lack of notability, had the closer investigated the sources provided by those requesting a keep deeper I feel that grounds for notability would have been established. In the closing statement the closer dismisses sources such as The Jew in American Cinema and Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen as being about Jewish characters and productions , however both sources go on at length about the persecution of Jewish Actors in the early part of the 20th century (both in totalitarian regimes across Eurasia and in Hollywood as well)- why some Jewish Actors were forced to change names and even resorted to Plastic Surgery to hide their Jewishness , and why those actors who opted to remain in Jewish Roles developed the stereotypical "Jewish Character" to promote their Jewishness. In the late 1940s and early 1950s this turned nasty with the "Outing" of several Jewish Actors (pg 40 Acting Jewish). Whilst during the later part of the 20th century, ethnicity and particularly Jewish culture became a thing of pride, it also became a time when Method acting came up with a formula for non-Jewish actors to play stereotypical Jewish; as a result Jewish Actors moved away from playing stereotypical Jewish characters and a much broader range of Jewish culture was exemplified by Jewish Actors whilst Non-Jews tended to play closer to the stereotype (or Jews played as non-jews). A lot of these (and other sources) confirm the assertion that "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." but this could be widened; that "the majority have acted in roles associated with Jewishness or significant Jewish history and/or culture." The article Secular Jewish culture acts as a head article for this, though it is in need of expansion in the Film section, though there is enough material and sources that a spinout into Secular Jewish acting could be considered. The list can be considered a list of notable proponents. I would also challenge the assertion by the closer that The large number of references to the article demonstrating notability "was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting" a number of the links already assert or question how the Actor's Jewishness has a notable effect on roles they have portrayed. I did suggest in the AFD that this should be held to a higher inclusion criteria limiting sources to those that show the person is notable for being a "Jewish Actor" but this does not seem to have been considered in the close. The existence of this notability already establishes that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because it is a Culturally Significant Phenomenon so whilst it was not specifically addressed by those asking for a keep we felt we were addressing it in our notability sourcing. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Endorse close. Everything the RFD nominator mentioned (the discrimination, the success, etc.) may belong in a prose article called something like "History of Jews in Acting". I tried really hard, but I just cannot see how a List of Jewish (and half-Jewish, and quarter-Jewish) actors has anything to do with what was just said. The list contained names, and dates of birth, and nothing else. Also, some of the people on there aren't even real actors (like Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg are mainly models). I also fail to see how the story of American Jewish actors has anything to do with actors from other countries (many of whom have never even been to the US.) If you want to write something about the "Jewish characters/stereotypes", or what Jewish actors have been through, go ahead, but the list has absolutely no relation to those issues. Which is why I voted delete in the first place.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus as nom, over this weekend I've chosen not to comment until now, as any attempt would again see Bulldog barking out minutiae that have no real bearing on this debate and just lead in circles. If the question is, did the closing administrator close correctly then again I stand by my original argument that all the closing arguments could were addressed by the keep side but were dismissed by the closing Admin in favour of Bulldog's yet again unproven claim of irrelevance. Even Analysing the sources here Bulldog continues to dismiss them despite the fact they clearly show this as a notable intersection on the basis that they don't then list every actor - that's not the point, the point is that this is a notable intersection - individuals on the list have separate sources showing that their individual inclusion is justified. The debate also raises the question of whether the notable intersection applies to all the entires. I think Postdlf sums up the reasoning keeping best above, despite Bulldogs further claims that these sources only justify creating a prose article (BTW Bulldog, claiming that proves this is a notable intersection exists per WP:N), however that line debate is similar to asking if a non-notable song by a notable artist belongs in their discography, we try to be as complete as possible even even if songs are not notable as belonging to that artist. Good sourcing should ensure that all entries are covered, as being Jewish Actors and if the source asserts the person is a Jewish Actor then it is identifying this as a notable fact about the person. I think there are issues that need to be dealt with regarding sourcing but they are not insurmountable and arguments made on that basis were rightly dismissed by the closing admin. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 09:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Here is what I wrote on
CSD G4 speedy delete admin Spartaz's home page:Frankly on the article PSR B1257+12 D it speaks of extrasolar dwarf planets. I had said this before, MY ARTICLE WAS ABOUT A CONCEPT. THE NAME DOES AND DID NOT MATTER! I know enough to know that something that is not a word should not be declared one. I'm not interested in an exact name. I never was! Enough with this overzealous inquisition and literalness! The page was said to be there during the debate about exodwarf planet. All I did was add content. -- Yisraelasper ( talk ) 05:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted by vote, not consensus. Vote misinterpreted. Proposer gave "kill OR RENAME". Seconder later modified opinion to "rename". I and another editor backed "rename". Two further editors backed "recategorise under top level" (ie Category:Music, although the top-level category is otherwise fully diffused). Two editors backed "delete" but did not respond to further discussion so not "consensual". Request for notice of deletion by me ignored. Result - many articles (eg Category:Music therapy) currently no longer categorised under "Music", which is absurd and counter-productive. Reasons given for deletion cannot be identified among possible reasons given on page. Restoration may, if necessary, be temporary. Redheylin ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was deleted immediately. The deletion was not under any deletion policies. The deleter supposedly thought that the page was a hoax but I assure you it was not. I think the problem is that I didn't have any sources for it. I have found sources now. Mwywy ( talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
I just closed this as delete based on giving less value to ILIKEIT keep votes vs well founded concerns about scope and propensity for BLP vios but the page had more then 5000 revisions which gives me pause as it needs a dev to delete this and would not be easy for an admin to undelete it should the deletion be challenged at a later date. I would appreciate review of my close prior to seeking deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My request is this article to be reviewed and if possible to go Live again. Here is the link for the improved article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. Thank you for your assistance! Chesszorro ( talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. However, I think the article was updated precisely and placed as a project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. It has updated information, sources, etc. We can consider that there are at least three sources to be independent of the subject. [77] [78] [79]. Please, let me know what else important requires to be updated.-- Chesszorro ( talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion. As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why was this article on a Polish power station speedy deleted? A power station with 600 MW generation power is surely not a candidate for a speedy deletion and has a great importance for the electricity supply of a country. There are many entries of comparable power stations in the Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 ( talk • contribs) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 December 2010
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The category has over 49 pages that link to it. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:20am • 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting undeletion of these five categories:
CFD was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners. The deletion discussion focused primarily on "person" categories, not general categories relating to the subject matter itself, such as screenplays, films, etc. In addition, there is one category of people who specifically do not object to the award and even attended the ceremony in order to accept it. These categories should have been discussed separately and not part of the above deletion discussion. As I had thought that an admin would have closed the discussion as no consensus due to the equal amount of Keep comments, I did not request mid-deletion-discussion to have part of it separated regarding these five categories. I had thought the discussion would have been closed as no consensus, with the categories kept. At the very least, these five categories should have been discussed separately, as they are an entirely separate issue than the "person" issue of the other categories from the deletion discussion. Note that I attempted to raise the issue first with the admin that relisted, and later closed, the same deletion discussion, the admin refused to restore these particular five categories for a separate deletion discussion [80]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt ( talk)
I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion. As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Although three users !voted keep, none of their reasonings were based in non-free content policy, nor did they answer to the nomination. The first "keep" was the nominator essentially accusing me of bad faith, just like he posted on dozens of other images that were later deleted. The second only argues that the image depicts the casualties mentioned in the article. Depicting something mentioned in an article is not a valid reason to use a non-free image, per WP:NFCC. The third supported the second argument, and went on to say that because the organization RAWA looks for museums and art galleries to host photo exhibitions, it's okay to use their photos. Copyrighted art may be displayed in a gallery, that doesn't mean we can automatically include it on Wikipedia. And this isn't copyrighted art, it's a photo from a press agency (RAWA News), which is deemed unacceptable, it depicts a war, which is deemed unacceptable, and its omission isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article. The deletion discussion produced illegitimate reasons to keep non-free content. Consensus doesn't trump non-free image policy or copyright. Swarm X 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Relist The discussion itself does seem faulty, the arguments given for keeping being rather weak - argument by assertion, talk of copyright law when that's not relevant - wikipedia's standards differ to copyright law, strange assertion regarding what the image depicts and a rather vague argument about commercial value. Your listing however wasn't the greatest either with basic assertion which could have done with being expanded upon. This looks like a discussion which needed more input rather than being closed one way or the other. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment from closing admin - I did in fact consider the arguments of the nominator. In short, I'll respond to each point the nominator pulls up:
I really don't particularly care either way if the nomination is relisted, but I wanted to illustrate how I came to the decision in light of the comments from the community. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's my job, to interpret the community's consensus. And the community was saying the critical commentary was sufficient. It looks completely legit to me. As for the dead part, I only inserted that to distinguish it from violations of NFCC1 - which almost universally disallows images of living persons. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |