31 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith ( talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page [2], it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable [3]. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith ( talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Two deletes which addressed the reason given for deletion: essay-like how-to content. Closer gave no policy-based rationale about why the "keep" and "merge" votes raised valid objections. Pnm ( talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (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 think I'm doing this right... Ultimatum (American band) was deleted following a standard deletion review. I got the deleting admin to restore the page to my sandbox where I and other WPers could improve the article, addressing the lack of references and significance of the labels the band is on. I believe that these improvements (and continuing improvements like adding albums, etc.) have improved this article to the point where it is ready for resubmission to the mainspace. I contacted Mr. Ritzman who instructed me to resubmit the article here, rather than proceeding with a move without consulting anyone. I have informed Mr. Ritzman of this resubmission and await your (hopefully positive) comments. Thank you. Here's the updated page. User:5minutes/Ultimatum (American band) 5minutes ( talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because I tagged it as do not move to Commons. From WP:CSD#F8, the following condition must be met: The image is not marked as {{ do not move to Commons}}. This condition is clearly not met. I would normally just undelete it, but I already did that twice, thinking there was a mistake. However, User:Edokter is clearly willing to wheel-war over the issue, and I don't want to lose my adminship status. The reason I want it to be kept local is this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom (not that I should need to provide this, seeing as policy does not require it for the user wanting the image to be kept. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you guys get a kick out of communicating in wikispeak. Just sayin'. Dadge ( talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 January 2012
28 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page was speedily deleted on 22 January 2012, reason G4, despite being challenged by two editors. However, the previous AfD discussion took place in June 2011, shortly after the first CCL tournament started. CCL is (Jan/Feb 2012) into its second season and the new article clearly stated this, therefore the article was substantially different from the 2011 article. The event is widely and regularly reported in the Times of India and Hindu Times. I put the recent article through AfC, copy-edited it and added additional sources. The speedy deletion tag was placed on the article while I was in the process of reviewing it (a message at the top of the article clearly stated review was in progress). I notice another article of the same name was created and speedily deleted today, so the 'problem' is not going to go away. The deleting admin, Fastily, is away until 8 February. Sionk ( talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (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. |
| :
Kristijan Mesaroš (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
He is notable by gaining access to the main draw of 2012 PBZ Zagreb Indoors. I request undeletion. - Gabinho >:) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they
As per the above I request Undeletion of the article. The player is now notable. ( Gabinho >:) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag. The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes. The admin's looong comment said very little in many words. The admin received a barnstar for the deletion. CallawayRox ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 January 2012
25 January 2012
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This image file was deleted in this 2 week discussion that I missed for failing to log in to notice prior to January 1 and January 24. I had no chance to respond to any concerns about the file. I cannot speak with the admin, User:Fastily, who deleted it as he/she is away from Wikipedia until sometime in February. This image file was created by myself from two photographs I personally took, front and back, of the headstone of Iwo Jima flag raiser, Rene Gagnon, at Arlington National Cemetery. I believe I had released its rights to CC. It was taken and then created in 2006. This image was determined, somehow, to be "3D Art," among other issues, which I could have addressed had I time and chance to respond. The Rene Gagnon article is now missing this illustrative photograph as a result of the deletion. Please undelete this image file. Thank you. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:45, 25 January 2012 (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. |
|
User:RHaworth deleted this redirect with the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)", but I think he's mistaken. I created the redirect after I committed that very typo, while trying to go to Georgia (U.S. state). It seems like an easy error to make, and there's no risk of confusion, so a redirect definitely seems in order. He's indicated on his talk page that he disagrees, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Relevant policy includes Wikipedia:Redirects, where likely misspellings are an explicit reason for the creation of a redirect. Moreover, under "reasons not to delete", that page lists "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." I find this useful and think it should be recreated. Meelar (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages. Isn't it quicker anyway (than typing in Georgia (U.S. State) to enter "Georgia" and then click on the correct option from the list provided? Dadge ( talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Properly licensed and no valid reason for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 January 2012
22 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a slightly unconventional DRV, as I wasn't involved in the initial AFD; but I noticed it discussed on ANI and saw that this early close caused a certain amount of disagreement, so I'm bringing it here for further comment. This discussion was closed after less than two hours on the grounds that the article has previously been kept several times, and that this was a bad-faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet account. That allegation has been rejected by ArbCom, see here: this was a nomination in good faith. As for the first ground, while this article has been kept at AFD several times before, the last two AFDs, in 2009 and 2010, were both closed as 'speedy keep' after three and a half hours and eight hours respectively. The last AFD for the article which was actually allowed to run for the full period was back in 2008, three and a half years ago, and it's entirely possible consensus could have changed since then. In fact, this time round, one user besides the nominator did make a good-faith comment that the article should be deleted before the AFD was closed. That alone means that Wikipedia:Speedy keep should not have been used: none of the criteria listed on that page applied. To be quite clear, I'm not asking for the result of this AFD to be overturned to 'delete'; I only think that there are good-faith reasons to doubt whether this person meets our notability guidelines, and that the AFD should be reopened and allowed to run for the full period so those arguments can be properly considered. Robofish ( talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (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. |
|
About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq ( talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (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. |
|
Unlock For Creation Review New References And Discography DJ Many56 ( talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You Should Allow Creation For Me To Point The New Sources And Info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 January 2012
20 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello this edit is in regard to the redirection of the wikipedia article Trenzalore. Please look over the history of the article. I have placed alot of material to be analyzed by a different administrator. Tom morris has asked me to provide him with my resources and other supporting material. I have complied with his request but he still refuses to revert the article from its current redirected state. If you have any questions for me or my team i will happily answer them to the best of my ability. This article is not yet finished but it cannot evolve unless it is viewable to the public and users with an esoteric understanding add their input. I would like to make it clear this article is not about whether or not aliens exist. The article is about the television character Doctor Who and one of his future adventures. I await your responce, Jerrydeanrsmith ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 January 2012
18 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination) (which included the 1990s and 2010s articles) as no consensus, meaning that they are kept. However, a month earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was closed as delete. There's absolutely no reason that two should be exist and one should not, so I'm bringing them here in the hopes of getting a common outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 January 2012
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||
At the AfD the argument was made that, just as with the previous AfD, this article constituted a POV fork. Reference to the discussion and rationale of the previous AfD was explicit, as well as an example of the POV nature of the current version of the article: Despite the fact that the work is called "controversial", there is no criticism of it it in the article. In discussing the AfD with the closing admin, several things stood out: [10]
Once the AfD closed with a keep, Yfever stepped in and began to copy/paste content from other articles.
In light of the consideration given by the closing admin, and subsequent content forking, I ask that this AfD be reviewed by the community. I will be notifying all the editors who participated in both AfDs to get more input on the issue. aprock ( talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Concur with Aprock. The initial form of the recreated article was copy-pasted from the lede of User:Ephery/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, a subpage of topic-banned user David.Kane: issues in the arbcom case WP:ARBR&I were closely related to the creation of the original fork. Additional content was copy-pasted by Yfever out of context from the stable article History of the race and intelligence controversy. This controversial paper, which is carefullly summarised in the History article, is never now discussed in secondary sources outside a historical context. There is no justification for having a separate article, written without reference to the events in the decades that followed its publication. The editing of Yfever is currently being considered at WP:AE. How a new user could find the original on a subpage of Ephery has not yet been explained. In addition it is now acknowledged that since the close of WP:ARBR&I there has been an unprecedented amount of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Although a disruptive sockpuppet of Mikemikev has been blocked within the last few hours, a checkuser confirmed that the account of Yfever has no relation to Mikemikev. A similar kind of article was created by another sock of a banned user user:Rrrrr5 some time back: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spencer195/Archive. That article The Color of Crime (New Century) was also a fork and is now discussed in the main article New Century Foundation. It is possible that Yfever'saccount is related to that bizarre account, which was a usurped administrator account. Mathsci ( talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A motivational speaker who has won many awards in his country, including obtaining a datukship, which carries the title "Datuk", equivalent to MBE in Britain. He does clearly passes WP:N, do refer to here, here, and here for sources. These sources were from Malaysia's top tabloid/newspapers i.e. The Star, Utusan Malaysia and Bernama, a news agency of the government of Malaysia.
Recent revisions were speedily deleted per A7. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:07, 17 January 2012 (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 recent revisions were deleted per G4. While the procedure was technically correct, somehow we should put good faith on January 2012 editors, such as raintheone, for all their hard work. Actually, this topic is actually a fictional character of a soap opera Home and Away, but this article was treated as a hoax previously by horrible revisions in the past. I don't know the history of revisions, but I hope the deletion is undone to revisions that treat this topic as if it were actually a fictional character, not a fake (hoax) person. In the meantime, I'm not asking for overturn to keep; nevertheless, I would request, under Rain, to overturn to redirect to another page. By the way, there is another page deleted: Damien Roberts. George Ho ( talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (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. |
|
Seamus (dog) was an article referring to the dog of Mitt Romney, which was involved in a controversial 1983 road trip where the dog was transported on the roof of Romney's car for 11 hours. Seamus was discussed extensively during the 2008 US President race, and the issue resurfaced last week. I saw hundred of news articles online regarding Seamus, prompting me to create the article 'Seamus (dog)'. Anthony Bradbury, a Wikipedia administrator, deleted the article on Saturday, January 14, 2012 under his speedy delete authority, citing provision A7 (lack of significance). Upon discussion with him, he stated that the incident had significance, but the dog did not. I understand his logic, but I disagree with his decision. There is an article for Mary Jo Kopechne, even though her only significance in is relation to Edward Kennedy's Chappaquidick incident. Likewise, there are webpages for some pets of politicians which are far more obscure than Seamus. For example, 'Dash (collie)' is an article for a dog of Caroline Harrison, a lesser-known First Lady of the nineteenth century. Debbie W. 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I initially prodded this article because it was an unsourced BLP. The prod was removed. I brought it to AfD with the argument that it was an unsourced BLP. There was some wrangling about WP:AUTHOR, which occupied most of the actual discussion. Towards the end of the debate I conceded that while I was pretty far from the satisfied with the "independent reviews" upon which this and so many of our other comic book articles are based, WP:AUTHOR had strictly speaking been met. I went on to note that despite this, the article still contained no independent reliable sources and we had no verifiable biographical information about the subject. I raised the point that the only verifiable information we have about this person is that her name is not Nari Kusakawa. There was no further discussion before
Armbrust closed the discussion as "keep".
The article still contained no independent reliable sources at that time. I challenged Armbrust on his talk page about this, and after he'd closed the debate as "keep", he began to edit the article to add one source from the AfD and to tag the other concerns I raised. However, despite this post-AfD rationalisation, the article still contains no verifiable information about this person. The only sources provided are about her corpus of work, and therefore, while we might have sources sufficient for list of works by Nari Kusakawa, my position remains that we should not have an article about the person who isn't called Nari Kusakawa. — S Marshall T/ C 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
<Hi guys, I was very surprised that this page was deleted. The discussion about whether or not to delete seems to have taken place between three editors over five days. The WJJF is the UK's largest Jujitsu federation, with over a thousand schools in the UK. In addition, we are represented in 17 countries worldwide. The reasons given for the deletion seem to center around whether the organisation is to be considered noteworthy by Wikipedia's standards, which is quite understandable, and whether the WJJF is n fact part of a larger organisation. I will consider the second point first. The WJJF is a member of the All Japan Jujitsu Federation which is for all intents and purposes a "federation of federations". We make no secret of our membership and in fact noted this on the Wikipage in question. We are very proud to be associated with the AJJF. With regard to the issue of whether or not we are noteworthy, well, this is of course a rather subjective matter, but as the largest jujitsu federation in the UK (and to the best of my knowledge the federation represented in more countries than any other, we certainly consider ourselves worthy of note. The suggestion seems to be that there is a lack of external sources to back up our assertion that we are, well, important. I accept this; there are not many external sources to this effect. However, out of interest prior to writing this appeal, I did my own cursory check of the Ju-Jitsu International Federation and Badminton Europe - the first I selected for its obvious connection to the matter at hand, the second was completely random but is the main federation representing badminton in Europe - a fact pointed out on Wikipedia. Both have pages on Wikipedia. I looked in the google news pages and neither was mentioned on any site other than their own. I do hope that neither of their wikipages will be deleted. The point I am making is that the bodies representing the less popular sports tend not to get media coverage and therefore cannot be verified in the same sense that, say, FIFA or the NFL might. I hope that you will reconsider the decision to delete the WJJF's page; many contributors gave their time to make it what is was and it was, in our opinion, a useful resource. MikeyBoab ( talk) 21:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 January 2012
13 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This AFD was closed as no consensus under non-admin closure. I made a request to the editor who closed the AFD to reverse his/her actions and the request was declined. I am requesting a deletion review as the no consensus appears to be arrived at by a vote count. When considering reliable sources, Huffington Post was used as the key item that made the difference, but there is a discussion with the AFD that notes that it isn't usable as a source for establishing notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article unilaterally deleted without discussion due to legal threats from an IP about material supported by reliable sources. Deleting admin, Prodego, requested Legal to review. Nothing has happened in 3 weeks. Prodego refuses to undelete the article with the material that instigated the legal threat still in there. User_talk:Prodego#Lupe Fuentes Morbidthoughts ( talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was recently deleted. It was decently well written and included sources to back up this information also. It was not promoting the website, it was merely stating the information related to the website. By the standards set by deleting this page means that pages relating to other websites would also fit this category of deletion as they are technically "promoting" these respective websites (even though they are merely providing information relating to these websites. DoinItMySelfYo ( talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 Qian Zhijun is a young man who was the victim of an internet meme, when his face was involuntarily superimposed onto various images (he was a minor at the time). The article QZ was deleted in 2007, after various afds, a admin wheel war, several DRV listings and a connected arbcom case. So, highly contentious. A few months ago, User:WhisperToMe recreated it AND an overlapping article on the meme itself ("Little Fatty"). He also uploaded pictures of the face on the meme, and created an article on connected "movies" (see below). The argument is that, according to some sources in Chinese, the individual has since (from 2009) become notable as an entertainer and actor. I remain unconvinced, but that's beside the point. The point is that you don't go about recreating contentious BLPs (and certainly not two of them), which we deleted them via the deletion process, without gathering a consensus that recreation is warranted by changed circumstances. I thus deleted the BLPs under CSD G4. OK, I am not asking for a review of my deletion. I am asking: is there evidence enough of new notability to allow the recreation of an article (remembering it would concern a living person)? I suggest that there should not be an article on the meme, as we've decided already to exclude that as not notable in itself. However, if the evidence is that this person is notable by virtue of his more recent career, then we should allow an article on him (which would, presumably, include his part in an internet meme). The discussion thus needs to be focussed on whether, if the meme didn't exist, would this Chinese actor be worthy of a biography? OK, over to you. Pertinent text below: Scott Mac 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to list additional sources:
All right. Although I'm not convinced re-creation is wise, what I am convinced about is that WhisperToMe has an arguable case. Arguable enough to belong at AfD rather than here. Allow re-creation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—
S Marshall
T/
C 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So far here is the revised paragraph: Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han. [1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q. [2] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of " Ghost Blows Out the Light." [3] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì), [4] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007. [5] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals. [6] In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai. [7] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光). [8] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting. [9] In July 2011 Qian was married. [10]
WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Original deletion discussions seem based on two concerns: Notability, and "Decency". Recent deletion prevents examination of new article. Editor now told to stop, but limited evidence presented here answers Notability concern. I cannot read Chinese, but, for example, 'Fatty' to host TV show is strong. Appearance in big-budget production with major cast ( Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon) also indication that fame is not limited to Internet, or "15 minutes". "Decency" concerns presented at previous Deletion discussions ignore possibility that "Xiao Pang" ("Little Fatty") may be "cute" term of endearment in Chinese language, for example. (I don't know if it is.) Chinese film titles Enter the Fat Dragon, Skinny Tiger, Fatty Dragon show less sensitivity to weight-related humor than in West today. "Fat" nicknames were not so offensive in West in past either. "Minnesota Fats", "Fats Waller", "Skinny and Fatty" (some countries called Laurel and Hardy), "Fatty Arbuckle", for example. Actor now appearing in films, courting celebrity, not hiding in shame. Indicates this concern, also, groundless. Bravo to WhisperToMe for doing very good work despite discouraging opposition. Hanna Barberian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Barberian ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han. [1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q. [2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief." [3] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of " Ghost Blows Out the Light." [4] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì), [5] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007. [6] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals. [7] In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai. [8] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光). [9] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting. [10] "Seven years ago a photograph can lead to an Internet meme. Seven years later, to put it more accurately, the more mature and better Little Fatty who acted in The University Days of a Dog is no longer the same as before . QQ Entertainment News said "Based on this point, the phrase "spirit, spirit" coming from him, it's difficult not for him to become popular. This is because his expressions draw laughter. This is similar to Uncle Zhao's comedies." [11] In the film, he portrays Daxiong, a university student who dreams of becoming a cook and is the son of a wealthy man. Director Lu Zhengyu said that Qian's character is a crucial source of comedy, and many of the comedic scenes are centered on Daxiong. [12] Qian's role was also his first in a romance role, since his character engages in a romance with a kindergarten teacher. As part of the film's promotion, Qian was scheduled to go on a tour in many Chinese cities, promoting the film. [12] In July 2011 Qian was married. [13] After his marriage, some online users lamented the new status, since he had changed from his boyhood status. [14]
Its so hard to investigate these externals. I will say that as per the above comment the first para is a bit exaggerated and the current para, could be re written from ... Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[3] to ...
|
| 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 AfD discussion, which I participated in, failed to mention an important piece of Weber's notability: he has competed at the highest levels of baseball in international competition, including the 2009 Baseball World Cup, where he won gold. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (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 closing admin did not consider the weight of arguments, treating the discussion simplistically as a vote, in clear contradiction of policy. (Polite attempts to engage the admin in discussion have not been fruitful.) This is problematic since there were a large number of voters who had misunderstood the template in question, and were arguing to delete it based on specious arguments. This decision needs to be re-examined by a competent third party. Stemonitis ( talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (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 review of my speedy deletion of this page, which I deleted under G4. - FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 January 2012
10 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article speedy deleted as a G4: but current version was not substantially identical (or unimproved) compared to the version deleted in 2008. Suggest restoring or relisting for appropriate discussion. 94.9.69.145 ( talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (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. |
|
There is a discussion to recover this category:
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Film. Now that
List of films in the public domain in the United States is sourced well, I wonder if we can put efforts into categorizing films especially made before 1923. Support: This review follows on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Copyright_claimant_data. The main reason for the deletion I see was that films that are in the PD in the US aren't necessarily PD in other countries. The suggestion is to set up Category: Public domain films in the United States and make it a sub-cat of Category:Public domain films. We have a sourced article of PD films, so these categories wouldn't state anything beyond the claims the list already makes; anything added to the category will be required to be on the list with a source, and the category has the added benefit of making the information available from the film article. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This discussion was originally closed as keep, but then changed several days later to delete. The closing admin, Fastily, asked me to open a DRV here, expressing uncertainty on how it should be closed. By my biased reading of the discussion, the rationale for deleting it is that it is "redundant" to {{ plainlist}}. However, the {{ plainlist}} template does not work in image captions, while {{ unbulleted list}} does. Andy called this reason "invalid" since the example given had only recently been converted to use {{ plainlist}} and/or {{ unbulleted list}}. However, this does not change the fact that {{ plainlist}} fails in image captions, while {{ unbulleted list}} does not. There is also no technical reason why {{ unbulleted list}} cannot be simply changed to use "class=plainlist", which would make it generate the exact same html as {{ plainlist}} (see what appears to be agreement with this point here). In addition, the {{ unbulleted list}} template uses the same syntax as some other list templates, like {{ collapsible list}}, which means it can be indented when used within another infobox, which makes the wikitext easier to read. I did not cite this reason in the debate, but one which has become very clear to me when I attempted to convert a few instances of the unbulleted list template. Finally, by not orphaning the {{ unbulleted list}} template, we save needless edits to a few thousand articles, since adding "class=plainlist" would only require a single edit to the parent template (see here). Frietjes ( talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (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 closed this as "delete" two years ago, and there have been two DRV's since then. Now a user has brought up a source on my talk page, which may be considered significant coverage. See what you guys think of it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 9 January 2012 (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. |
|
Closed improperly by a non-admin, Armbrust ( talk · contribs). WP:NAC requires that for a non-admin closure, that the AfD discussion be "absent any contentious debate among participants." There were two of us still arguing for delete, many of the keeps were little more than WP:JUSTAVOTE and I had just hours earlier posted a serious criticism of the meager sources offered. While an admin might have been acting within the guidelines to close as keep, a non-admin closure is simply not appropriate. I requested that Armbrust undo his close but he has refused. Msnicki ( talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 January 2012
7 January 2012
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
Premature closure. Substantial information had been added to the associated article's talk page and deletion discussion less than 24 hours prior to termination. Only two active participants since article was wholly unsourced, yielded zero known non-circular search results, listed incorrect geographical coordinates, and was generally indiscernible from a hoax. Associated discussion may be seen here. No prejudice against subsequent deletion if rescue is impossible. Suggest relisting. — C M B J 10:21, 7 January 2012 (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. |
|
Non-admin closure. Closer decided to keep article while discussion had already moved to a redirect to Automatic Loveletter. Discussion was still active, so closure was a surprise. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like this article to be restaured, so as to correct the problems. Thanks in advance,-- Rédacteur Tibet ( talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (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. |
|
Someone at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#PO SUM ON wants this article to be resurrected. To be honest, the deletion discussion lacks a possibility that the non-English sources may indicate notability of this "Hong Kong"-based corporation ( http://www.posumon.com.hk/). The Chinese name is 保心安, and I used it to search for this topic: [17], [18], and other news sources. If anyone understand Chinese, that may be relieving George Ho ( talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (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. |
|
About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq ( talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 January 2012
4 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A sub-article of a clearly notable main topic. The issue is that of appropriate scope, not overall notability. The discussion was fairly evenly split between keep & delete, with a significant group wishing to merge. The closing admin dismissed all the keep arguments as merely ILIKEIT. Whilst there are arguments on both (or three) sides, there was clearly no shared consensus to act in any particular way. It was later raised with the closing admin at User_talk:DGG#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FChristopher_Hitchens.27s_critiques_of_public_figures, but this was dismissed out of hand as, "There's no point in continuing here. I was correct in every way that matters." Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Endorse and kudos to DGG for making the right decision and properly giving BLP weight over N. Its worth commenting that DGG is not a BLP fanatic, in fact, I would characterise him is generally BLPSceptic so the weight of the BLP risk is clearly high if DGG finds that BLP outweighs N in this specific case. Spartaz Humbug! 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This debate resulted a delete; however, I re-created these deleted articles into redirects. Somehow, the deleted history logs were recovered are are recently prone to unnecessary reverts to former states. I wonder if anyone either endorse deletion or overturn to "something". Actually, these characters are non-notable for lack of significance or impact, but I should have used it in the debate. George Ho ( talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (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 nominators rationale was that many entries are categorized without a reference. I very strongly agree with one of the dissenters in that discussion who pointed out that this is a WP:V issue and should be resolved through removal of the category until reference is provided, not through deletion of category. We have plenty of potentially controversial categories for people, like Category:LGBT people, and categories for similar secret group members - Category:Members of secret societies. In light of that, I see no reason to justify deletion of this category; it should be restored. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:26, 3 January 2012 (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. |
|
Notable actress, 22 roles in well-received and well-known movies and television shows JesseRafe ( talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Since this article's creation, there has been many problems surrounding the notability of this street. I discussed this on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets and it is quite obvious to me that this street is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. According to the project page, a street has to pass one of the following criteria to be notable:
20th Avenue clearly does not meet any of these criteria. It has not become synonymous with any group or company (having a few subway stations on it does not count for this criteria because there are many other streets in the city with one, two, three, or even four stations on them and they do not have Wikipedia articles), nothing significant or important has ever happened on this street, and it has never been shown or mentioned in a movie, television show, or song nor the subject or a documentary or media source. There was clearly an imbalance in the AfD. People who voted for to keep it have no knowledge of streets and their notability while those who voted to delete it like me are members of projects related to New York City. From looking at the contributions and sudden stop in activity of the User who created the 20th Avenue article, it seems obvious that he/she wanted the street on Wikipedia likely because he/she lives on it. Also, we already have a Disambiguation page of this street with the same basic information because there is nothing significant about the street other than it being served by a couple of subway stations. Not every street that has a train station on it is worthy enough of being on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would have many short articles about streets that are just 1-2 sentences long and not likely to ever be expanded. If you Google search "20th Avenue," as one of the users who voted to delete it showed, no legit information about it from sites like the NYC Department of Transportation pops up proving that is a notable street. The only sites that show are random yellow pages about various small businesses that are located there. I am not trying to pick on anyone or any street. I just feel it is not right for someone to create an article about a random street in Brooklyn and then suddenly disappear from this site. If a user created an article about the street that I live in, I would nominate it for an AfD too. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC) The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 January 2012
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Carlon Jeffery ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
|
| 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 found book coverage - [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. The deleting admin hasn't edited since August. SL93 ( talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
31 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith ( talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page [2], it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable [3]. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith ( talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Two deletes which addressed the reason given for deletion: essay-like how-to content. Closer gave no policy-based rationale about why the "keep" and "merge" votes raised valid objections. Pnm ( talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (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 think I'm doing this right... Ultimatum (American band) was deleted following a standard deletion review. I got the deleting admin to restore the page to my sandbox where I and other WPers could improve the article, addressing the lack of references and significance of the labels the band is on. I believe that these improvements (and continuing improvements like adding albums, etc.) have improved this article to the point where it is ready for resubmission to the mainspace. I contacted Mr. Ritzman who instructed me to resubmit the article here, rather than proceeding with a move without consulting anyone. I have informed Mr. Ritzman of this resubmission and await your (hopefully positive) comments. Thank you. Here's the updated page. User:5minutes/Ultimatum (American band) 5minutes ( talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because I tagged it as do not move to Commons. From WP:CSD#F8, the following condition must be met: The image is not marked as {{ do not move to Commons}}. This condition is clearly not met. I would normally just undelete it, but I already did that twice, thinking there was a mistake. However, User:Edokter is clearly willing to wheel-war over the issue, and I don't want to lose my adminship status. The reason I want it to be kept local is this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom (not that I should need to provide this, seeing as policy does not require it for the user wanting the image to be kept. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you guys get a kick out of communicating in wikispeak. Just sayin'. Dadge ( talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 January 2012
28 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page was speedily deleted on 22 January 2012, reason G4, despite being challenged by two editors. However, the previous AfD discussion took place in June 2011, shortly after the first CCL tournament started. CCL is (Jan/Feb 2012) into its second season and the new article clearly stated this, therefore the article was substantially different from the 2011 article. The event is widely and regularly reported in the Times of India and Hindu Times. I put the recent article through AfC, copy-edited it and added additional sources. The speedy deletion tag was placed on the article while I was in the process of reviewing it (a message at the top of the article clearly stated review was in progress). I notice another article of the same name was created and speedily deleted today, so the 'problem' is not going to go away. The deleting admin, Fastily, is away until 8 February. Sionk ( talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (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. |
| :
Kristijan Mesaroš (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
He is notable by gaining access to the main draw of 2012 PBZ Zagreb Indoors. I request undeletion. - Gabinho >:) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they
As per the above I request Undeletion of the article. The player is now notable. ( Gabinho >:) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag. The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes. The admin's looong comment said very little in many words. The admin received a barnstar for the deletion. CallawayRox ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 January 2012
25 January 2012
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This image file was deleted in this 2 week discussion that I missed for failing to log in to notice prior to January 1 and January 24. I had no chance to respond to any concerns about the file. I cannot speak with the admin, User:Fastily, who deleted it as he/she is away from Wikipedia until sometime in February. This image file was created by myself from two photographs I personally took, front and back, of the headstone of Iwo Jima flag raiser, Rene Gagnon, at Arlington National Cemetery. I believe I had released its rights to CC. It was taken and then created in 2006. This image was determined, somehow, to be "3D Art," among other issues, which I could have addressed had I time and chance to respond. The Rene Gagnon article is now missing this illustrative photograph as a result of the deletion. Please undelete this image file. Thank you. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:45, 25 January 2012 (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. |
|
User:RHaworth deleted this redirect with the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)", but I think he's mistaken. I created the redirect after I committed that very typo, while trying to go to Georgia (U.S. state). It seems like an easy error to make, and there's no risk of confusion, so a redirect definitely seems in order. He's indicated on his talk page that he disagrees, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Relevant policy includes Wikipedia:Redirects, where likely misspellings are an explicit reason for the creation of a redirect. Moreover, under "reasons not to delete", that page lists "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." I find this useful and think it should be recreated. Meelar (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages. Isn't it quicker anyway (than typing in Georgia (U.S. State) to enter "Georgia" and then click on the correct option from the list provided? Dadge ( talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Properly licensed and no valid reason for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 January 2012
22 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a slightly unconventional DRV, as I wasn't involved in the initial AFD; but I noticed it discussed on ANI and saw that this early close caused a certain amount of disagreement, so I'm bringing it here for further comment. This discussion was closed after less than two hours on the grounds that the article has previously been kept several times, and that this was a bad-faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet account. That allegation has been rejected by ArbCom, see here: this was a nomination in good faith. As for the first ground, while this article has been kept at AFD several times before, the last two AFDs, in 2009 and 2010, were both closed as 'speedy keep' after three and a half hours and eight hours respectively. The last AFD for the article which was actually allowed to run for the full period was back in 2008, three and a half years ago, and it's entirely possible consensus could have changed since then. In fact, this time round, one user besides the nominator did make a good-faith comment that the article should be deleted before the AFD was closed. That alone means that Wikipedia:Speedy keep should not have been used: none of the criteria listed on that page applied. To be quite clear, I'm not asking for the result of this AFD to be overturned to 'delete'; I only think that there are good-faith reasons to doubt whether this person meets our notability guidelines, and that the AFD should be reopened and allowed to run for the full period so those arguments can be properly considered. Robofish ( talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (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. |
|
About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq ( talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (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. |
|
Unlock For Creation Review New References And Discography DJ Many56 ( talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You Should Allow Creation For Me To Point The New Sources And Info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 January 2012
20 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello this edit is in regard to the redirection of the wikipedia article Trenzalore. Please look over the history of the article. I have placed alot of material to be analyzed by a different administrator. Tom morris has asked me to provide him with my resources and other supporting material. I have complied with his request but he still refuses to revert the article from its current redirected state. If you have any questions for me or my team i will happily answer them to the best of my ability. This article is not yet finished but it cannot evolve unless it is viewable to the public and users with an esoteric understanding add their input. I would like to make it clear this article is not about whether or not aliens exist. The article is about the television character Doctor Who and one of his future adventures. I await your responce, Jerrydeanrsmith ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 January 2012
18 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination) (which included the 1990s and 2010s articles) as no consensus, meaning that they are kept. However, a month earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was closed as delete. There's absolutely no reason that two should be exist and one should not, so I'm bringing them here in the hopes of getting a common outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 January 2012
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||
At the AfD the argument was made that, just as with the previous AfD, this article constituted a POV fork. Reference to the discussion and rationale of the previous AfD was explicit, as well as an example of the POV nature of the current version of the article: Despite the fact that the work is called "controversial", there is no criticism of it it in the article. In discussing the AfD with the closing admin, several things stood out: [10]
Once the AfD closed with a keep, Yfever stepped in and began to copy/paste content from other articles.
In light of the consideration given by the closing admin, and subsequent content forking, I ask that this AfD be reviewed by the community. I will be notifying all the editors who participated in both AfDs to get more input on the issue. aprock ( talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Concur with Aprock. The initial form of the recreated article was copy-pasted from the lede of User:Ephery/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, a subpage of topic-banned user David.Kane: issues in the arbcom case WP:ARBR&I were closely related to the creation of the original fork. Additional content was copy-pasted by Yfever out of context from the stable article History of the race and intelligence controversy. This controversial paper, which is carefullly summarised in the History article, is never now discussed in secondary sources outside a historical context. There is no justification for having a separate article, written without reference to the events in the decades that followed its publication. The editing of Yfever is currently being considered at WP:AE. How a new user could find the original on a subpage of Ephery has not yet been explained. In addition it is now acknowledged that since the close of WP:ARBR&I there has been an unprecedented amount of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Although a disruptive sockpuppet of Mikemikev has been blocked within the last few hours, a checkuser confirmed that the account of Yfever has no relation to Mikemikev. A similar kind of article was created by another sock of a banned user user:Rrrrr5 some time back: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spencer195/Archive. That article The Color of Crime (New Century) was also a fork and is now discussed in the main article New Century Foundation. It is possible that Yfever'saccount is related to that bizarre account, which was a usurped administrator account. Mathsci ( talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A motivational speaker who has won many awards in his country, including obtaining a datukship, which carries the title "Datuk", equivalent to MBE in Britain. He does clearly passes WP:N, do refer to here, here, and here for sources. These sources were from Malaysia's top tabloid/newspapers i.e. The Star, Utusan Malaysia and Bernama, a news agency of the government of Malaysia.
Recent revisions were speedily deleted per A7. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:07, 17 January 2012 (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 recent revisions were deleted per G4. While the procedure was technically correct, somehow we should put good faith on January 2012 editors, such as raintheone, for all their hard work. Actually, this topic is actually a fictional character of a soap opera Home and Away, but this article was treated as a hoax previously by horrible revisions in the past. I don't know the history of revisions, but I hope the deletion is undone to revisions that treat this topic as if it were actually a fictional character, not a fake (hoax) person. In the meantime, I'm not asking for overturn to keep; nevertheless, I would request, under Rain, to overturn to redirect to another page. By the way, there is another page deleted: Damien Roberts. George Ho ( talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (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. |
|
Seamus (dog) was an article referring to the dog of Mitt Romney, which was involved in a controversial 1983 road trip where the dog was transported on the roof of Romney's car for 11 hours. Seamus was discussed extensively during the 2008 US President race, and the issue resurfaced last week. I saw hundred of news articles online regarding Seamus, prompting me to create the article 'Seamus (dog)'. Anthony Bradbury, a Wikipedia administrator, deleted the article on Saturday, January 14, 2012 under his speedy delete authority, citing provision A7 (lack of significance). Upon discussion with him, he stated that the incident had significance, but the dog did not. I understand his logic, but I disagree with his decision. There is an article for Mary Jo Kopechne, even though her only significance in is relation to Edward Kennedy's Chappaquidick incident. Likewise, there are webpages for some pets of politicians which are far more obscure than Seamus. For example, 'Dash (collie)' is an article for a dog of Caroline Harrison, a lesser-known First Lady of the nineteenth century. Debbie W. 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I initially prodded this article because it was an unsourced BLP. The prod was removed. I brought it to AfD with the argument that it was an unsourced BLP. There was some wrangling about WP:AUTHOR, which occupied most of the actual discussion. Towards the end of the debate I conceded that while I was pretty far from the satisfied with the "independent reviews" upon which this and so many of our other comic book articles are based, WP:AUTHOR had strictly speaking been met. I went on to note that despite this, the article still contained no independent reliable sources and we had no verifiable biographical information about the subject. I raised the point that the only verifiable information we have about this person is that her name is not Nari Kusakawa. There was no further discussion before
Armbrust closed the discussion as "keep".
The article still contained no independent reliable sources at that time. I challenged Armbrust on his talk page about this, and after he'd closed the debate as "keep", he began to edit the article to add one source from the AfD and to tag the other concerns I raised. However, despite this post-AfD rationalisation, the article still contains no verifiable information about this person. The only sources provided are about her corpus of work, and therefore, while we might have sources sufficient for list of works by Nari Kusakawa, my position remains that we should not have an article about the person who isn't called Nari Kusakawa. — S Marshall T/ C 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
<Hi guys, I was very surprised that this page was deleted. The discussion about whether or not to delete seems to have taken place between three editors over five days. The WJJF is the UK's largest Jujitsu federation, with over a thousand schools in the UK. In addition, we are represented in 17 countries worldwide. The reasons given for the deletion seem to center around whether the organisation is to be considered noteworthy by Wikipedia's standards, which is quite understandable, and whether the WJJF is n fact part of a larger organisation. I will consider the second point first. The WJJF is a member of the All Japan Jujitsu Federation which is for all intents and purposes a "federation of federations". We make no secret of our membership and in fact noted this on the Wikipage in question. We are very proud to be associated with the AJJF. With regard to the issue of whether or not we are noteworthy, well, this is of course a rather subjective matter, but as the largest jujitsu federation in the UK (and to the best of my knowledge the federation represented in more countries than any other, we certainly consider ourselves worthy of note. The suggestion seems to be that there is a lack of external sources to back up our assertion that we are, well, important. I accept this; there are not many external sources to this effect. However, out of interest prior to writing this appeal, I did my own cursory check of the Ju-Jitsu International Federation and Badminton Europe - the first I selected for its obvious connection to the matter at hand, the second was completely random but is the main federation representing badminton in Europe - a fact pointed out on Wikipedia. Both have pages on Wikipedia. I looked in the google news pages and neither was mentioned on any site other than their own. I do hope that neither of their wikipages will be deleted. The point I am making is that the bodies representing the less popular sports tend not to get media coverage and therefore cannot be verified in the same sense that, say, FIFA or the NFL might. I hope that you will reconsider the decision to delete the WJJF's page; many contributors gave their time to make it what is was and it was, in our opinion, a useful resource. MikeyBoab ( talk) 21:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 January 2012
13 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This AFD was closed as no consensus under non-admin closure. I made a request to the editor who closed the AFD to reverse his/her actions and the request was declined. I am requesting a deletion review as the no consensus appears to be arrived at by a vote count. When considering reliable sources, Huffington Post was used as the key item that made the difference, but there is a discussion with the AFD that notes that it isn't usable as a source for establishing notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article unilaterally deleted without discussion due to legal threats from an IP about material supported by reliable sources. Deleting admin, Prodego, requested Legal to review. Nothing has happened in 3 weeks. Prodego refuses to undelete the article with the material that instigated the legal threat still in there. User_talk:Prodego#Lupe Fuentes Morbidthoughts ( talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was recently deleted. It was decently well written and included sources to back up this information also. It was not promoting the website, it was merely stating the information related to the website. By the standards set by deleting this page means that pages relating to other websites would also fit this category of deletion as they are technically "promoting" these respective websites (even though they are merely providing information relating to these websites. DoinItMySelfYo ( talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 Qian Zhijun is a young man who was the victim of an internet meme, when his face was involuntarily superimposed onto various images (he was a minor at the time). The article QZ was deleted in 2007, after various afds, a admin wheel war, several DRV listings and a connected arbcom case. So, highly contentious. A few months ago, User:WhisperToMe recreated it AND an overlapping article on the meme itself ("Little Fatty"). He also uploaded pictures of the face on the meme, and created an article on connected "movies" (see below). The argument is that, according to some sources in Chinese, the individual has since (from 2009) become notable as an entertainer and actor. I remain unconvinced, but that's beside the point. The point is that you don't go about recreating contentious BLPs (and certainly not two of them), which we deleted them via the deletion process, without gathering a consensus that recreation is warranted by changed circumstances. I thus deleted the BLPs under CSD G4. OK, I am not asking for a review of my deletion. I am asking: is there evidence enough of new notability to allow the recreation of an article (remembering it would concern a living person)? I suggest that there should not be an article on the meme, as we've decided already to exclude that as not notable in itself. However, if the evidence is that this person is notable by virtue of his more recent career, then we should allow an article on him (which would, presumably, include his part in an internet meme). The discussion thus needs to be focussed on whether, if the meme didn't exist, would this Chinese actor be worthy of a biography? OK, over to you. Pertinent text below: Scott Mac 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to list additional sources:
All right. Although I'm not convinced re-creation is wise, what I am convinced about is that WhisperToMe has an arguable case. Arguable enough to belong at AfD rather than here. Allow re-creation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—
S Marshall
T/
C 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So far here is the revised paragraph: Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han. [1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q. [2] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of " Ghost Blows Out the Light." [3] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì), [4] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007. [5] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals. [6] In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai. [7] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光). [8] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting. [9] In July 2011 Qian was married. [10]
WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Original deletion discussions seem based on two concerns: Notability, and "Decency". Recent deletion prevents examination of new article. Editor now told to stop, but limited evidence presented here answers Notability concern. I cannot read Chinese, but, for example, 'Fatty' to host TV show is strong. Appearance in big-budget production with major cast ( Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon) also indication that fame is not limited to Internet, or "15 minutes". "Decency" concerns presented at previous Deletion discussions ignore possibility that "Xiao Pang" ("Little Fatty") may be "cute" term of endearment in Chinese language, for example. (I don't know if it is.) Chinese film titles Enter the Fat Dragon, Skinny Tiger, Fatty Dragon show less sensitivity to weight-related humor than in West today. "Fat" nicknames were not so offensive in West in past either. "Minnesota Fats", "Fats Waller", "Skinny and Fatty" (some countries called Laurel and Hardy), "Fatty Arbuckle", for example. Actor now appearing in films, courting celebrity, not hiding in shame. Indicates this concern, also, groundless. Bravo to WhisperToMe for doing very good work despite discouraging opposition. Hanna Barberian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Barberian ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han. [1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q. [2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief." [3] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of " Ghost Blows Out the Light." [4] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì), [5] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007. [6] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals. [7] In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai. [8] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光). [9] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting. [10] "Seven years ago a photograph can lead to an Internet meme. Seven years later, to put it more accurately, the more mature and better Little Fatty who acted in The University Days of a Dog is no longer the same as before . QQ Entertainment News said "Based on this point, the phrase "spirit, spirit" coming from him, it's difficult not for him to become popular. This is because his expressions draw laughter. This is similar to Uncle Zhao's comedies." [11] In the film, he portrays Daxiong, a university student who dreams of becoming a cook and is the son of a wealthy man. Director Lu Zhengyu said that Qian's character is a crucial source of comedy, and many of the comedic scenes are centered on Daxiong. [12] Qian's role was also his first in a romance role, since his character engages in a romance with a kindergarten teacher. As part of the film's promotion, Qian was scheduled to go on a tour in many Chinese cities, promoting the film. [12] In July 2011 Qian was married. [13] After his marriage, some online users lamented the new status, since he had changed from his boyhood status. [14]
Its so hard to investigate these externals. I will say that as per the above comment the first para is a bit exaggerated and the current para, could be re written from ... Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[3] to ...
|
| 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 AfD discussion, which I participated in, failed to mention an important piece of Weber's notability: he has competed at the highest levels of baseball in international competition, including the 2009 Baseball World Cup, where he won gold. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (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 closing admin did not consider the weight of arguments, treating the discussion simplistically as a vote, in clear contradiction of policy. (Polite attempts to engage the admin in discussion have not been fruitful.) This is problematic since there were a large number of voters who had misunderstood the template in question, and were arguing to delete it based on specious arguments. This decision needs to be re-examined by a competent third party. Stemonitis ( talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (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 review of my speedy deletion of this page, which I deleted under G4. - FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 January 2012
10 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article speedy deleted as a G4: but current version was not substantially identical (or unimproved) compared to the version deleted in 2008. Suggest restoring or relisting for appropriate discussion. 94.9.69.145 ( talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (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. |
|
There is a discussion to recover this category:
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Film. Now that
List of films in the public domain in the United States is sourced well, I wonder if we can put efforts into categorizing films especially made before 1923. Support: This review follows on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Copyright_claimant_data. The main reason for the deletion I see was that films that are in the PD in the US aren't necessarily PD in other countries. The suggestion is to set up Category: Public domain films in the United States and make it a sub-cat of Category:Public domain films. We have a sourced article of PD films, so these categories wouldn't state anything beyond the claims the list already makes; anything added to the category will be required to be on the list with a source, and the category has the added benefit of making the information available from the film article. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This discussion was originally closed as keep, but then changed several days later to delete. The closing admin, Fastily, asked me to open a DRV here, expressing uncertainty on how it should be closed. By my biased reading of the discussion, the rationale for deleting it is that it is "redundant" to {{ plainlist}}. However, the {{ plainlist}} template does not work in image captions, while {{ unbulleted list}} does. Andy called this reason "invalid" since the example given had only recently been converted to use {{ plainlist}} and/or {{ unbulleted list}}. However, this does not change the fact that {{ plainlist}} fails in image captions, while {{ unbulleted list}} does not. There is also no technical reason why {{ unbulleted list}} cannot be simply changed to use "class=plainlist", which would make it generate the exact same html as {{ plainlist}} (see what appears to be agreement with this point here). In addition, the {{ unbulleted list}} template uses the same syntax as some other list templates, like {{ collapsible list}}, which means it can be indented when used within another infobox, which makes the wikitext easier to read. I did not cite this reason in the debate, but one which has become very clear to me when I attempted to convert a few instances of the unbulleted list template. Finally, by not orphaning the {{ unbulleted list}} template, we save needless edits to a few thousand articles, since adding "class=plainlist" would only require a single edit to the parent template (see here). Frietjes ( talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (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 closed this as "delete" two years ago, and there have been two DRV's since then. Now a user has brought up a source on my talk page, which may be considered significant coverage. See what you guys think of it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 9 January 2012 (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. |
|
Closed improperly by a non-admin, Armbrust ( talk · contribs). WP:NAC requires that for a non-admin closure, that the AfD discussion be "absent any contentious debate among participants." There were two of us still arguing for delete, many of the keeps were little more than WP:JUSTAVOTE and I had just hours earlier posted a serious criticism of the meager sources offered. While an admin might have been acting within the guidelines to close as keep, a non-admin closure is simply not appropriate. I requested that Armbrust undo his close but he has refused. Msnicki ( talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 January 2012
7 January 2012
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
Premature closure. Substantial information had been added to the associated article's talk page and deletion discussion less than 24 hours prior to termination. Only two active participants since article was wholly unsourced, yielded zero known non-circular search results, listed incorrect geographical coordinates, and was generally indiscernible from a hoax. Associated discussion may be seen here. No prejudice against subsequent deletion if rescue is impossible. Suggest relisting. — C M B J 10:21, 7 January 2012 (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. |
|
Non-admin closure. Closer decided to keep article while discussion had already moved to a redirect to Automatic Loveletter. Discussion was still active, so closure was a surprise. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like this article to be restaured, so as to correct the problems. Thanks in advance,-- Rédacteur Tibet ( talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (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. |
|
Someone at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#PO SUM ON wants this article to be resurrected. To be honest, the deletion discussion lacks a possibility that the non-English sources may indicate notability of this "Hong Kong"-based corporation ( http://www.posumon.com.hk/). The Chinese name is 保心安, and I used it to search for this topic: [17], [18], and other news sources. If anyone understand Chinese, that may be relieving George Ho ( talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (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. |
|
About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq ( talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 January 2012
4 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A sub-article of a clearly notable main topic. The issue is that of appropriate scope, not overall notability. The discussion was fairly evenly split between keep & delete, with a significant group wishing to merge. The closing admin dismissed all the keep arguments as merely ILIKEIT. Whilst there are arguments on both (or three) sides, there was clearly no shared consensus to act in any particular way. It was later raised with the closing admin at User_talk:DGG#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FChristopher_Hitchens.27s_critiques_of_public_figures, but this was dismissed out of hand as, "There's no point in continuing here. I was correct in every way that matters." Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Endorse and kudos to DGG for making the right decision and properly giving BLP weight over N. Its worth commenting that DGG is not a BLP fanatic, in fact, I would characterise him is generally BLPSceptic so the weight of the BLP risk is clearly high if DGG finds that BLP outweighs N in this specific case. Spartaz Humbug! 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This debate resulted a delete; however, I re-created these deleted articles into redirects. Somehow, the deleted history logs were recovered are are recently prone to unnecessary reverts to former states. I wonder if anyone either endorse deletion or overturn to "something". Actually, these characters are non-notable for lack of significance or impact, but I should have used it in the debate. George Ho ( talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (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 nominators rationale was that many entries are categorized without a reference. I very strongly agree with one of the dissenters in that discussion who pointed out that this is a WP:V issue and should be resolved through removal of the category until reference is provided, not through deletion of category. We have plenty of potentially controversial categories for people, like Category:LGBT people, and categories for similar secret group members - Category:Members of secret societies. In light of that, I see no reason to justify deletion of this category; it should be restored. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:26, 3 January 2012 (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. |
|
Notable actress, 22 roles in well-received and well-known movies and television shows JesseRafe ( talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 January 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Since this article's creation, there has been many problems surrounding the notability of this street. I discussed this on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets and it is quite obvious to me that this street is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. According to the project page, a street has to pass one of the following criteria to be notable:
20th Avenue clearly does not meet any of these criteria. It has not become synonymous with any group or company (having a few subway stations on it does not count for this criteria because there are many other streets in the city with one, two, three, or even four stations on them and they do not have Wikipedia articles), nothing significant or important has ever happened on this street, and it has never been shown or mentioned in a movie, television show, or song nor the subject or a documentary or media source. There was clearly an imbalance in the AfD. People who voted for to keep it have no knowledge of streets and their notability while those who voted to delete it like me are members of projects related to New York City. From looking at the contributions and sudden stop in activity of the User who created the 20th Avenue article, it seems obvious that he/she wanted the street on Wikipedia likely because he/she lives on it. Also, we already have a Disambiguation page of this street with the same basic information because there is nothing significant about the street other than it being served by a couple of subway stations. Not every street that has a train station on it is worthy enough of being on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would have many short articles about streets that are just 1-2 sentences long and not likely to ever be expanded. If you Google search "20th Avenue," as one of the users who voted to delete it showed, no legit information about it from sites like the NYC Department of Transportation pops up proving that is a notable street. The only sites that show are random yellow pages about various small businesses that are located there. I am not trying to pick on anyone or any street. I just feel it is not right for someone to create an article about a random street in Brooklyn and then suddenly disappear from this site. If a user created an article about the street that I live in, I would nominate it for an AfD too. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC) The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 January 2012
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Carlon Jeffery ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
|
| 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 found book coverage - [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. The deleting admin hasn't edited since August. SL93 ( talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |