|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The result of the discussion should have been keep, the admin who closed the discussion was wrong. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
As in the AfD, opinions here are divided: 13 editors endorse the closure, while 8 would prefer to overturn it to no consensus. This amounts to a lack of consensus about whether the closure was correct. As described in the "closing reviews" section above:
In this case, I consider that relisting the discussion is appropriate because the discussion ran for only about two days instead of seven and relatively few editors offered an opinion. While the early closure as such has not been much criticized, and was explained by the closer as an attempt to forestall continued drama, I hope that relisting the discussion will allow people who are not already committed in the disputes surrounding this subject to participate in the discussion. – Sandstein 06:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||||
This was a close call.
| |||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 company has a relativity large impact and importance in South Florida, and could be of interest to those in the area. The article has been deleted twice: once in 2006, and again in 2008 (the latter apparently with good reason). However, both admins are either inactive or have expressed an unwillingness to continue admin duties. If undeleted, I will be making some updates to the article. Lbart0725 ( talk) 18:36, 29 May 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. |
Negative article should be corrected, not deleted 189.61.28.233 ( talk) 00:56, 28 May 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 became curious about this deleted article after reading this external commentary. Kathy 9is2 ( talk) 02:40, 27 May 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 article about LaSecla was originally deleted on the grounds that the subject did not meet gridiron football notability guidelines. However, now that the subject is now playing in the Italian Football League ( source), subject is now notable. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 23:12, 27 May 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. |
Used for maintenance and unencylcopedic content when no alternative is available. Undelete. -- Captaincollect1970 ( talk) 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Captaincollect1970 ( talk) 03:18, 26 May 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 article on carnism was deleted without any apparent attempts to determine whether or not the concept is credible, which it is. The primary reason for deletion was the claim that the term carnism is non-notable. But in reality, carnism is discussed all over the animal rights movement, referenced in psychological publications (including Psychology Today, June, 2011) in philosophical theory (Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, by Marti Kheel. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (2007)), in The Guardian, by a journalist for the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly, and was even discussed in a beef industry journal. Therefore, I request that the page be restored. If editors have concerns over validating and relevant citations and references they can then be addressed. I have attempted to discuss the deletion with Davewild but received no response. -- Biocentricegalitarian ( talk) 20:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your responses to this deletion request. At the moment I am indeed an SPA, I almost also coincidentally a psychology student whose lab has begun to research carnism, and there is at least one other doing the same at the University of British Columbia. I have taken time to review wikipedia's articles on neologisms, on notability and on coatracks, and continue to contest this deletion because I do not believe these terms apply to this concept, although they may have applied to the article that had been written on it. Carnism is clearly notable, as shown in the links I posted in my first entry into this deletion log. Certainly such references also mention Melanie Joy, just as any discussion of objectivism or cognitive dissonance is almost certain to reference Ayn Rand or Leon Festinger. Uzma's focus on articles of tedious of reporting is not representative of the 65,600 results of a Google search on the topic. Indeed, the first result after carnism.com is to a New York Times blog. According to the Wikipedia page on notability, an article is notable if it has received coverage from a source independent of the subject. All of the links above are evidence of such coverage, and easily found. Certainly, an article on carnism is not necessarily a coatrack. Carnism is an ideology, and an article about that ideology does not need to advocate another (in this case veganism, or Joy herself), which I believe some editors area concerned about. Taking all of this into consideration, I wonder why the article was so quickly deleted (twice) instead of editors requesting that it be rewritten to satisfy wikipedia's standards, which could be easily done. The concept is notable, it is verifiable and has entered the vernacular of the animal rights movement, and is being researched acacemically. If an article on carnism was written that satisfied all these requirements more fully than the previous one, could it be posted? I request that the page be unblocked, but the original article permanently deleted, so that I may write such an article. A term growing in usage around the world like this (it was recently discussed here in German) should be available to the Wikipedia community. -- Biocentricegalitarian ( talk) 21:04, 28 May 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 was not notified of this sizable deletion please undelete the work in progress. Over 100 templates were deleted with such minimal discussion. The template is intended to be more like {{ Flag}} with minimalist input. Development is waiting for MediaWiki updates. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:08, 25 May 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 that the Vesna Award (the main film award in Slovenia) [45] makes him notable enough. [46] In this article [47], he is described as one of the most prominent Slovenian film editors. Some further biographical information is available at [48] and [49]. -- Eleassar my talk 10:29, 25 May 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 had no time/energy to protest the deletion of the article when it was done. I really don't think it was garbage and I really believe that it's notable. Even only the number of crimes make it so. However, in case the administrators decide that it's "garbage", please restore the last version somewhere in my user page so I can expand it. It would cost me too much time to find again the references and to create it again from scratch. Thank you. — Ark25 ( talk) 15:21, 24 May 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. |
Not the real reason why this page was deleted. Is the editor involved with a competitor or commercial product? This page was linked at other pages in Wikipedia, eg. comparison of accounting software. This software is GPL Licensed open source and has many users in South Africa, Please assist to restore this page so that it can be updated 196.210.160.59 ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 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 AfD was closed on 11 May as No consensus. The closer then undid the close on 23 May, and it returned to the unclosed pool where I picked it up, unaware of the previous close. I did eventually become aware of the previous close, but this was quite late on in my close review; that I had already spent over an hour on the close may have influenced my decision to carry on with the close. My thinking at the time was that I was dealing with the same AfD, and that as long as I took account of the article talkpage comments and article developments since the close, that would be sufficient. Normally this wouldn't be significant, however, there had been significant article development between the two closes, so this morning I am thinking that would put me in the position of casting a supervote. The article is currently userfied at User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton. I am thinking that there are possible reasonable outcomes - one is to uphold the close, and allow the usefied article to be moved into mainspace where it can face a second AfD, or restore the article to mainspace and relist the AfD. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 24 May 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 most notorious wikipedia vandal now has at least three mentions in reliable sources. I don't believe these are enough to produce an article necessarily (they may be though), but they are enough to add him to Troll_(Internet)#Examples - which is where I would like this redirect to go to. Once the redirect is in place it's a simple matter to chuck in a sentence or two about WoW there. Egg Centri c 12:51, 24 May 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 started this article yesterday though there was a recent AfD under a different title. I discussed it with Joe Decker, the deleting admin ( discussion here), and he suggested DRV. I would like to keep this because we lack articles about women in general (outside the entertainment industry), about Canadian women in particular, and this would be our only article about a Canadian woman animal rights advocate. She appears regularly on television in Canada discussing animal welfare. However, she talks about the issues, not about herself, so there isn't a lot of biographical information around, which is perhaps why some editors argue she isn't notable enough. There have been two AfDs:
The second AfD discussion was somewhat borderline, the current version of the article is quite different, and additional sources have been added. This was the article at the time of the second AfD, which focused mostly on the political party she led and the elections she stood in. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:49, 22 May 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. |
5 years on, I have found many articles from newpapers from as early as 1881, documenting the importance & history of cricket in the eastern suburbs goldfields region of Victoria, and am hoping you can reconsider re-adding this page. I particularly want to highight how cricket was formed & developed in Victoria some 158 years ago, and have many stories to share. Mystery92no ( talk) 01:24, 20 May 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 isn't a request for a deletion review of the AFD as it was done correctly. Editors have stated that in order to make way for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afranet the issue must be brought here. I am making this request on behalf of User:ChazzI73 and will inform him of this discussion so he can take part. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:42, 18 May 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. |
Seems eminently notable. (Page was prodded.)
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:54, 17 May 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. |
History was not preserved as a result of the 2007 AfD; the old article was deleted and replaced with a redirect. Request recreation of pre-2007 history for the following reasons:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 list article was brought to AFD on May 2 by Axem Titanium over concerns that it violated WP:GAMEGUIDE, may have violated WP:COPYVIO, and had no references to support its notability. Independent sources were added during the course of the discussion, which rendered WP:NOTE a non-issue, and shifted the discussion to the two other concerns. Sandstein, who closed the discussion, noted that "There is clearly no consensus" about the GAMEGUIDE argument. As these two concerns were not motivating factors in the close, this DRV is not an attempt to address either one. OrenBochman (BO) replied first with a Keep, contending that the nominator's argument for copyvio was "unconvincing" and giving an explanation; the nominator did not contest those points. I responded next with another Keep, noting my agreement with this copyvio argument, and as Polisher of Cobwebs and Robbstrd both also indicated Keep per me, I will assume that they therefore also agreed with OrenBochman's arguments. Jclemens next replied with a Keep, asserting again that the list is not a copyvio. Sangrolu also replied with a Keep, and also contended that the article is not a copyvio. All of these responses are to the original nominator's argument regarding possible copyvio. Masem added the first Delete response, and was also the first to begin any detailed discussion about why he felt this was a copyright violation, and discussed this with Sangrolu and Postdlf. Masem approached Moonriddengirl on her talk page for input, which she provided, with addition discussion on the subject. Orangemike and Shooterwalker both argued to Delete the article based on WP:GAMEGUIDE; neither one addressed the potential copyvio issue. Postdlf, however, was ultimately convinced by Moonriddengirl's argument and responded to Delete. After her input, David Shepheard (Big Mac) and Daranios both argued to Keep based on disagreement with the nominator's other arguments for deletion, but after discussion both also noted that they did not feel the list is a copyright violation. Hobit and Webwarlock both also argued to Keep based on the list not being a copyright problem. Marikafragen also contributed to the discussion about copyright violation, and although the repsonse is inline, also argued to Keep. There is a fair amount of discussion of the issue after Moonriddengirl's initial posting, and I have only summarized the nature of the respondents here. Sandstein's rationale for the close mentioned Moonriddengirl's " prima facie persuasive case" for copyvio argument, although he admits that "I myself am not sure that I agree with it". He also contended that because almost all of the "keep" opinions "do not address her analysis but at best only assert that the list is not a copyright violation, without giving reasons why. These arguments are not persuasive and must therefore be discounted." It is not clear from this description which Keep opinions were counted or discounted or why they were or were not persuasive. I did not respond to Moonriddengirl's analysis because I had already made my feelings on the issue of copyvio clear and did not feel the need to repeat myself; I can only wonder if anyone else did the same thing. If I had known it was necessary to counter all arguments, I would have done so. All eleven users responding with Keep did address the copyvio issue in some form (two by deferring their responses to me) as I believe I have demonstrated, most disagreeing with the rationale or calling it into question, and several of them offered their own persective on the issue. Of the five people indicating Delete, only three offered their thoughts on the copyvio issue. Is this a consensus to delete based on copyright violation? That is the only issue that needs to be determined here; not whether you agree with one rational or another, just whether this AFD had come to the consesus that the closer posited. It could be argued to Relist the AFD, but I am concerned that this discussion Masem started could taint the results. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article should be Overturned to at the very least a No consensus to allow it to be rexamined again in the future. BOZ ( talk) 16:40, 10 May 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. |
Significant new information has come to light since deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. (Noted that the previous information is already available because the result was merge.) But the closer has retired, so rather than boldly recreating the article, I'm seeking community consensus for its notability. Some new sources: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] -- Trevj ( talk) 09:01, 10 May 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. |
Page was deleted for lack of notability. Recreated from scratch years later with a new source that appeared in intervening time. Would like history undeleted so that relevant content from old version is available for merging into new version. Homunq ( talk) 01:19, 10 May 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 article was deleted out of process by User:JzG through a G11 reasoning. This was followed by salting the page, even though no creation spamming or even the threat to do so was evident. I discussed the matter with the admin in question, but he refused to revert his actions, so I am making this listing. Shemspeed is a notable music label, the article of which was written perfectly fine and had proper sourcing on the topic. It didn't fall at all under a G11 deletion. This nomination is in conjunction with the L'CHAIM Vodka nomination below, which is the other article also deleted by Jzg. Silver seren C 22:25, 9 May 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 article was deleted out of process by User:JzG through a G11 reasoning. This was followed by salting the page, even though no creation spamming or even the threat to do so was evident. I discussed the matter with the admin in question, but he refused to revert his actions, so I am making this listing. L'CHAIM is a notable product, whose article could have definitely used some amount of work, but was not even close to the level of a G11 deletion. This nomination is in conjunction with the Shemspeed nomination above, which is the other article also deleted by JzG. Silver seren C 22:25, 9 May 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. |
In the RfD discussion there were several good faith recommendations for keeping, which included explicit counters to the good faith deletion recommendations. This was completely ignored though by Ruslik0 who closed the discussion as "Speedy delete as G11 (spam/political advocacy)" (and then deleted it with the same rationale), despite that fact that not one commenter in the entire discussion characterised it as such nor called for speedy deletion for any other reason. In discussion on his talk page Ruslik0 has defended his actions as saying that if any administrator thinks something is spam they can speedy delete it as such, regardless of what anybody else thinks and that any discussion about it, ongoing or otherwise, is irrelevant. This is not the way speedy deletion works though - pages must clearly meet the criteria and it must be clear that they will always be deleted at a deletion discussion. When an active deletion discussion has good faith recommendations for courses of action other than deletion, then by definition the page cannot meet the speedy deletion criteria. Yes I am biased with respect to this specific debate, but I can easily see how the debate could be closed as keep or no consensus based on the arguments. A delete outcome based on the discussion is possible, but I think a stretch. A deletion that completely ignores the arguments though is out of process. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:18, 9 May 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 page was moved after the AfD to the Incubator, small improvements were made and then moved back to mainpace. I believe the article should go through a DRV in this case. mabdul 10:43, 9 May 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. |
Undelete:This article should be undeleted, as there are numerous sources for this phenomena, and it was apparently judged as a medical topic when initially deleted, which it is not. It will not appear in a medical paper, for the same reason a genre of music won't. See this talk page for a heavily linked discussion on the topic. The current page for ASMR describes the phenomena as a blatant hoax. This needs to be edited regardless of the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 ( talk) 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I haven't checked every single one of those but I'm not very impressed. Almost all of them are self-published websites, blogs, forums, Facebook pages and other unreliable content. I don't think there's anything not in one of those categories that hasn't been mentioned already.
Hut 8.5 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are rarely reliable for anything other than the opinion of the author, including statements of fact (
WP:NEWSORG). For instance if you were writing an article about a film you could cite an opinion piece as a source for the author's opinion about it, provided the statement was properly attributed. This article isn't like that, and these sources can't be used to support statements about ASMR. Note that the guideline I linked to goes on to particularly discourage the use of such sources for claims about scientific topics.
[75] and
[76] are unreliable blogs, the latter doesn't even constitue significant coverage.
[77] is much better, but there are still two problems with it. Firstly you're not proposing just to cite it as a source, you're trying to use it to establish notability and to base the entire article on it. Using a self-published source for either of these things is deeply problematic. As
WP:SPS says, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". Secondly it doesn't meet the more stringent standard of
WP:MEDRS, which discourages the use of both primary sources and sources that haven't been peer-reviewed. I agree that ASMR's notability rather then existence is the issue, and I can't see why you brought its existence up.
Hut 8.5 09:46, 10 May 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. |
Undelete: I strongly feel that this article should be brought back for further discussion. I'll probably be shot down but I feel it's worthwhile. With a little more sourcing, it could have easily complied with WP:MMANOT. Luchuslu
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Unsalt: Fully described at User:John J. Bulten/Pro-death. While this is straightforward new-article creation from one angle (as dab rather than redirect), from another it is appropriate to invite review of my proposed content at that link. Because of salting, the usual DRV situation does not apply; rather, the question is whether the evidence attached to my proposal is sufficient to affirm a dab page among capital punishment, death in culture, apoptosis, etc. It is my hope that this will proceed conscientiously without being tainted by its tangential relation to a current hot-button debate elsewhere on WP. JJB 21:29, 6 May 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 deletion occurred while I was busy with final exams, and I was not notified. This category was intended to include U.S. Supreme Court cases that explicitly overrule a prior decision of that court. Every category member was included on List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which the nominator appeared to have discovered and not seen fit to list for deletion. The discussion was based on two misconceptions that could have been easily corrected had I been notified. First, several commenters were under the mistaken impression that something other than a prior decision of the same court could be "overruled" ("the preponderance of cases decided are likely to overrule something, be it a legislative or congressional enactment, an executive or administrative decision, a ruling by a lower court, or an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court itself"; " Virtually every Supreme Court decision can be said to either overrule or uphold something"; "too many possible interpretations"; "non-defining"). This is flatly incorrect. A court does "overrule" a statute or regulation when it declares that statute or regulation unconstitutional, and it does not "overrule" a regulation when it sets it aside as inconsistent with a statute. Nor does the Supreme Court "overrule" lower court decisions. It reverses (or vacates) them on direct appeal or abrogates them in later cases. Even if there were any ambiguity in this term (which there is not), that would only have been grounds for renaming, not deletion. Second, one commenter took issue with the inclusion criteria, claiming it was too difficult to determine whether one Supreme Court decision overrules another. While there is room for some debate at the margins, both the list and category were limited to explicit overrules, i.e. situations where the Court uses the magic words "Today we overrule [decision1]" or similar. In the example given by the commenter (whether Employment Division v. Smith overruled Wisconsin v. Yoder), the answer is clearly no. Smith distinguished Yoder. While some commentators argue that there is tension between Smith and Yoder, all reasonable legal writers would concede that Smith did not explicitly overrule Yoder. The fact that some Supreme Court decisions are regarded as in tension with earlier, un-overruled decisions of that Court is insufficient reason to delete this highly useful category for the vast majority of overrules which inarguable and unambiguous (e.g. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce with the unmistakeable language "[Austin] should be and now is overruled."). Further, if it is contended that overrules are irreducibly subjective, the proper move would have been to delete the list itself (and, dare I mention, its other category), not the delete the category which helpfully leads readers to the list and similar cases. Savidan 18:32, 5 May 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 page was listed for deletion on April 2nd, and deleted on April 11th or so, after 2-3 votes for delete questioning the lack of sources and the reliability of sources. It was relisted on April 12th and the creator of the page (which is me) have added 3 credible and properly cited sources in the Chinese language which clearly showed that the person met criteria #1, #2 and #4 on WP:Music. Since it was relisted, there has only been one vote on the discussion, which was for keeping the article, with the reason being that sources have been found and provided, and notability has been noted. However, on April 28th it was deleted by another admin on the grounds "Fails WP:MUSIC and general notability. Consensus is to delete", neither accurate statement. I have since inquired about the article on that admin's talk page, calling out the lack of research on his part, but he diverted the issue and refused to correct it. For this reason I ask that the deletion be looked into and overturned. Timmyshin ( talk) 19:19, 4 May 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 are so many reasons why this MfD should not have been closed early. I'll try to enumerate them as briefly as I can:
Closing down this discussion early without a thoughtful closing summary by an uninvolved admin is a slap in the face to the dozens of editors who took time out to contribute to it. It sends the message that their time was wasted and their input was not valued or considered by anyone. I respectfully ask that this discussion be quickly reopened, not closed until it has been open for a full 7 days, and closed by an uninvolved admin who provides a neutral summary of the discussion. If that is not possible, then I think the MfD should be relisted. ‑Scottywong | express _ 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I put notices on the MFD talk page and Cla's talk page that the MFD closure was at DRV--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:51, 1 May 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 result of the discussion should have been keep, the admin who closed the discussion was wrong. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
As in the AfD, opinions here are divided: 13 editors endorse the closure, while 8 would prefer to overturn it to no consensus. This amounts to a lack of consensus about whether the closure was correct. As described in the "closing reviews" section above:
In this case, I consider that relisting the discussion is appropriate because the discussion ran for only about two days instead of seven and relatively few editors offered an opinion. While the early closure as such has not been much criticized, and was explained by the closer as an attempt to forestall continued drama, I hope that relisting the discussion will allow people who are not already committed in the disputes surrounding this subject to participate in the discussion. – Sandstein 06:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||||
This was a close call.
| |||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 company has a relativity large impact and importance in South Florida, and could be of interest to those in the area. The article has been deleted twice: once in 2006, and again in 2008 (the latter apparently with good reason). However, both admins are either inactive or have expressed an unwillingness to continue admin duties. If undeleted, I will be making some updates to the article. Lbart0725 ( talk) 18:36, 29 May 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. |
Negative article should be corrected, not deleted 189.61.28.233 ( talk) 00:56, 28 May 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 became curious about this deleted article after reading this external commentary. Kathy 9is2 ( talk) 02:40, 27 May 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 article about LaSecla was originally deleted on the grounds that the subject did not meet gridiron football notability guidelines. However, now that the subject is now playing in the Italian Football League ( source), subject is now notable. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 23:12, 27 May 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. |
Used for maintenance and unencylcopedic content when no alternative is available. Undelete. -- Captaincollect1970 ( talk) 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Captaincollect1970 ( talk) 03:18, 26 May 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 article on carnism was deleted without any apparent attempts to determine whether or not the concept is credible, which it is. The primary reason for deletion was the claim that the term carnism is non-notable. But in reality, carnism is discussed all over the animal rights movement, referenced in psychological publications (including Psychology Today, June, 2011) in philosophical theory (Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, by Marti Kheel. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (2007)), in The Guardian, by a journalist for the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly, and was even discussed in a beef industry journal. Therefore, I request that the page be restored. If editors have concerns over validating and relevant citations and references they can then be addressed. I have attempted to discuss the deletion with Davewild but received no response. -- Biocentricegalitarian ( talk) 20:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your responses to this deletion request. At the moment I am indeed an SPA, I almost also coincidentally a psychology student whose lab has begun to research carnism, and there is at least one other doing the same at the University of British Columbia. I have taken time to review wikipedia's articles on neologisms, on notability and on coatracks, and continue to contest this deletion because I do not believe these terms apply to this concept, although they may have applied to the article that had been written on it. Carnism is clearly notable, as shown in the links I posted in my first entry into this deletion log. Certainly such references also mention Melanie Joy, just as any discussion of objectivism or cognitive dissonance is almost certain to reference Ayn Rand or Leon Festinger. Uzma's focus on articles of tedious of reporting is not representative of the 65,600 results of a Google search on the topic. Indeed, the first result after carnism.com is to a New York Times blog. According to the Wikipedia page on notability, an article is notable if it has received coverage from a source independent of the subject. All of the links above are evidence of such coverage, and easily found. Certainly, an article on carnism is not necessarily a coatrack. Carnism is an ideology, and an article about that ideology does not need to advocate another (in this case veganism, or Joy herself), which I believe some editors area concerned about. Taking all of this into consideration, I wonder why the article was so quickly deleted (twice) instead of editors requesting that it be rewritten to satisfy wikipedia's standards, which could be easily done. The concept is notable, it is verifiable and has entered the vernacular of the animal rights movement, and is being researched acacemically. If an article on carnism was written that satisfied all these requirements more fully than the previous one, could it be posted? I request that the page be unblocked, but the original article permanently deleted, so that I may write such an article. A term growing in usage around the world like this (it was recently discussed here in German) should be available to the Wikipedia community. -- Biocentricegalitarian ( talk) 21:04, 28 May 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 was not notified of this sizable deletion please undelete the work in progress. Over 100 templates were deleted with such minimal discussion. The template is intended to be more like {{ Flag}} with minimalist input. Development is waiting for MediaWiki updates. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:08, 25 May 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 that the Vesna Award (the main film award in Slovenia) [45] makes him notable enough. [46] In this article [47], he is described as one of the most prominent Slovenian film editors. Some further biographical information is available at [48] and [49]. -- Eleassar my talk 10:29, 25 May 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 had no time/energy to protest the deletion of the article when it was done. I really don't think it was garbage and I really believe that it's notable. Even only the number of crimes make it so. However, in case the administrators decide that it's "garbage", please restore the last version somewhere in my user page so I can expand it. It would cost me too much time to find again the references and to create it again from scratch. Thank you. — Ark25 ( talk) 15:21, 24 May 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. |
Not the real reason why this page was deleted. Is the editor involved with a competitor or commercial product? This page was linked at other pages in Wikipedia, eg. comparison of accounting software. This software is GPL Licensed open source and has many users in South Africa, Please assist to restore this page so that it can be updated 196.210.160.59 ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 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 AfD was closed on 11 May as No consensus. The closer then undid the close on 23 May, and it returned to the unclosed pool where I picked it up, unaware of the previous close. I did eventually become aware of the previous close, but this was quite late on in my close review; that I had already spent over an hour on the close may have influenced my decision to carry on with the close. My thinking at the time was that I was dealing with the same AfD, and that as long as I took account of the article talkpage comments and article developments since the close, that would be sufficient. Normally this wouldn't be significant, however, there had been significant article development between the two closes, so this morning I am thinking that would put me in the position of casting a supervote. The article is currently userfied at User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton. I am thinking that there are possible reasonable outcomes - one is to uphold the close, and allow the usefied article to be moved into mainspace where it can face a second AfD, or restore the article to mainspace and relist the AfD. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 24 May 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 most notorious wikipedia vandal now has at least three mentions in reliable sources. I don't believe these are enough to produce an article necessarily (they may be though), but they are enough to add him to Troll_(Internet)#Examples - which is where I would like this redirect to go to. Once the redirect is in place it's a simple matter to chuck in a sentence or two about WoW there. Egg Centri c 12:51, 24 May 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 started this article yesterday though there was a recent AfD under a different title. I discussed it with Joe Decker, the deleting admin ( discussion here), and he suggested DRV. I would like to keep this because we lack articles about women in general (outside the entertainment industry), about Canadian women in particular, and this would be our only article about a Canadian woman animal rights advocate. She appears regularly on television in Canada discussing animal welfare. However, she talks about the issues, not about herself, so there isn't a lot of biographical information around, which is perhaps why some editors argue she isn't notable enough. There have been two AfDs:
The second AfD discussion was somewhat borderline, the current version of the article is quite different, and additional sources have been added. This was the article at the time of the second AfD, which focused mostly on the political party she led and the elections she stood in. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:49, 22 May 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. |
5 years on, I have found many articles from newpapers from as early as 1881, documenting the importance & history of cricket in the eastern suburbs goldfields region of Victoria, and am hoping you can reconsider re-adding this page. I particularly want to highight how cricket was formed & developed in Victoria some 158 years ago, and have many stories to share. Mystery92no ( talk) 01:24, 20 May 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 isn't a request for a deletion review of the AFD as it was done correctly. Editors have stated that in order to make way for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afranet the issue must be brought here. I am making this request on behalf of User:ChazzI73 and will inform him of this discussion so he can take part. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:42, 18 May 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. |
Seems eminently notable. (Page was prodded.)
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:54, 17 May 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. |
History was not preserved as a result of the 2007 AfD; the old article was deleted and replaced with a redirect. Request recreation of pre-2007 history for the following reasons:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 list article was brought to AFD on May 2 by Axem Titanium over concerns that it violated WP:GAMEGUIDE, may have violated WP:COPYVIO, and had no references to support its notability. Independent sources were added during the course of the discussion, which rendered WP:NOTE a non-issue, and shifted the discussion to the two other concerns. Sandstein, who closed the discussion, noted that "There is clearly no consensus" about the GAMEGUIDE argument. As these two concerns were not motivating factors in the close, this DRV is not an attempt to address either one. OrenBochman (BO) replied first with a Keep, contending that the nominator's argument for copyvio was "unconvincing" and giving an explanation; the nominator did not contest those points. I responded next with another Keep, noting my agreement with this copyvio argument, and as Polisher of Cobwebs and Robbstrd both also indicated Keep per me, I will assume that they therefore also agreed with OrenBochman's arguments. Jclemens next replied with a Keep, asserting again that the list is not a copyvio. Sangrolu also replied with a Keep, and also contended that the article is not a copyvio. All of these responses are to the original nominator's argument regarding possible copyvio. Masem added the first Delete response, and was also the first to begin any detailed discussion about why he felt this was a copyright violation, and discussed this with Sangrolu and Postdlf. Masem approached Moonriddengirl on her talk page for input, which she provided, with addition discussion on the subject. Orangemike and Shooterwalker both argued to Delete the article based on WP:GAMEGUIDE; neither one addressed the potential copyvio issue. Postdlf, however, was ultimately convinced by Moonriddengirl's argument and responded to Delete. After her input, David Shepheard (Big Mac) and Daranios both argued to Keep based on disagreement with the nominator's other arguments for deletion, but after discussion both also noted that they did not feel the list is a copyright violation. Hobit and Webwarlock both also argued to Keep based on the list not being a copyright problem. Marikafragen also contributed to the discussion about copyright violation, and although the repsonse is inline, also argued to Keep. There is a fair amount of discussion of the issue after Moonriddengirl's initial posting, and I have only summarized the nature of the respondents here. Sandstein's rationale for the close mentioned Moonriddengirl's " prima facie persuasive case" for copyvio argument, although he admits that "I myself am not sure that I agree with it". He also contended that because almost all of the "keep" opinions "do not address her analysis but at best only assert that the list is not a copyright violation, without giving reasons why. These arguments are not persuasive and must therefore be discounted." It is not clear from this description which Keep opinions were counted or discounted or why they were or were not persuasive. I did not respond to Moonriddengirl's analysis because I had already made my feelings on the issue of copyvio clear and did not feel the need to repeat myself; I can only wonder if anyone else did the same thing. If I had known it was necessary to counter all arguments, I would have done so. All eleven users responding with Keep did address the copyvio issue in some form (two by deferring their responses to me) as I believe I have demonstrated, most disagreeing with the rationale or calling it into question, and several of them offered their own persective on the issue. Of the five people indicating Delete, only three offered their thoughts on the copyvio issue. Is this a consensus to delete based on copyright violation? That is the only issue that needs to be determined here; not whether you agree with one rational or another, just whether this AFD had come to the consesus that the closer posited. It could be argued to Relist the AFD, but I am concerned that this discussion Masem started could taint the results. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article should be Overturned to at the very least a No consensus to allow it to be rexamined again in the future. BOZ ( talk) 16:40, 10 May 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. |
Significant new information has come to light since deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. (Noted that the previous information is already available because the result was merge.) But the closer has retired, so rather than boldly recreating the article, I'm seeking community consensus for its notability. Some new sources: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] -- Trevj ( talk) 09:01, 10 May 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. |
Page was deleted for lack of notability. Recreated from scratch years later with a new source that appeared in intervening time. Would like history undeleted so that relevant content from old version is available for merging into new version. Homunq ( talk) 01:19, 10 May 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 article was deleted out of process by User:JzG through a G11 reasoning. This was followed by salting the page, even though no creation spamming or even the threat to do so was evident. I discussed the matter with the admin in question, but he refused to revert his actions, so I am making this listing. Shemspeed is a notable music label, the article of which was written perfectly fine and had proper sourcing on the topic. It didn't fall at all under a G11 deletion. This nomination is in conjunction with the L'CHAIM Vodka nomination below, which is the other article also deleted by Jzg. Silver seren C 22:25, 9 May 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 article was deleted out of process by User:JzG through a G11 reasoning. This was followed by salting the page, even though no creation spamming or even the threat to do so was evident. I discussed the matter with the admin in question, but he refused to revert his actions, so I am making this listing. L'CHAIM is a notable product, whose article could have definitely used some amount of work, but was not even close to the level of a G11 deletion. This nomination is in conjunction with the Shemspeed nomination above, which is the other article also deleted by JzG. Silver seren C 22:25, 9 May 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. |
In the RfD discussion there were several good faith recommendations for keeping, which included explicit counters to the good faith deletion recommendations. This was completely ignored though by Ruslik0 who closed the discussion as "Speedy delete as G11 (spam/political advocacy)" (and then deleted it with the same rationale), despite that fact that not one commenter in the entire discussion characterised it as such nor called for speedy deletion for any other reason. In discussion on his talk page Ruslik0 has defended his actions as saying that if any administrator thinks something is spam they can speedy delete it as such, regardless of what anybody else thinks and that any discussion about it, ongoing or otherwise, is irrelevant. This is not the way speedy deletion works though - pages must clearly meet the criteria and it must be clear that they will always be deleted at a deletion discussion. When an active deletion discussion has good faith recommendations for courses of action other than deletion, then by definition the page cannot meet the speedy deletion criteria. Yes I am biased with respect to this specific debate, but I can easily see how the debate could be closed as keep or no consensus based on the arguments. A delete outcome based on the discussion is possible, but I think a stretch. A deletion that completely ignores the arguments though is out of process. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:18, 9 May 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 page was moved after the AfD to the Incubator, small improvements were made and then moved back to mainpace. I believe the article should go through a DRV in this case. mabdul 10:43, 9 May 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. |
Undelete:This article should be undeleted, as there are numerous sources for this phenomena, and it was apparently judged as a medical topic when initially deleted, which it is not. It will not appear in a medical paper, for the same reason a genre of music won't. See this talk page for a heavily linked discussion on the topic. The current page for ASMR describes the phenomena as a blatant hoax. This needs to be edited regardless of the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 ( talk) 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I haven't checked every single one of those but I'm not very impressed. Almost all of them are self-published websites, blogs, forums, Facebook pages and other unreliable content. I don't think there's anything not in one of those categories that hasn't been mentioned already.
Hut 8.5 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are rarely reliable for anything other than the opinion of the author, including statements of fact (
WP:NEWSORG). For instance if you were writing an article about a film you could cite an opinion piece as a source for the author's opinion about it, provided the statement was properly attributed. This article isn't like that, and these sources can't be used to support statements about ASMR. Note that the guideline I linked to goes on to particularly discourage the use of such sources for claims about scientific topics.
[75] and
[76] are unreliable blogs, the latter doesn't even constitue significant coverage.
[77] is much better, but there are still two problems with it. Firstly you're not proposing just to cite it as a source, you're trying to use it to establish notability and to base the entire article on it. Using a self-published source for either of these things is deeply problematic. As
WP:SPS says, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". Secondly it doesn't meet the more stringent standard of
WP:MEDRS, which discourages the use of both primary sources and sources that haven't been peer-reviewed. I agree that ASMR's notability rather then existence is the issue, and I can't see why you brought its existence up.
Hut 8.5 09:46, 10 May 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. |
Undelete: I strongly feel that this article should be brought back for further discussion. I'll probably be shot down but I feel it's worthwhile. With a little more sourcing, it could have easily complied with WP:MMANOT. Luchuslu
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Unsalt: Fully described at User:John J. Bulten/Pro-death. While this is straightforward new-article creation from one angle (as dab rather than redirect), from another it is appropriate to invite review of my proposed content at that link. Because of salting, the usual DRV situation does not apply; rather, the question is whether the evidence attached to my proposal is sufficient to affirm a dab page among capital punishment, death in culture, apoptosis, etc. It is my hope that this will proceed conscientiously without being tainted by its tangential relation to a current hot-button debate elsewhere on WP. JJB 21:29, 6 May 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 deletion occurred while I was busy with final exams, and I was not notified. This category was intended to include U.S. Supreme Court cases that explicitly overrule a prior decision of that court. Every category member was included on List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which the nominator appeared to have discovered and not seen fit to list for deletion. The discussion was based on two misconceptions that could have been easily corrected had I been notified. First, several commenters were under the mistaken impression that something other than a prior decision of the same court could be "overruled" ("the preponderance of cases decided are likely to overrule something, be it a legislative or congressional enactment, an executive or administrative decision, a ruling by a lower court, or an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court itself"; " Virtually every Supreme Court decision can be said to either overrule or uphold something"; "too many possible interpretations"; "non-defining"). This is flatly incorrect. A court does "overrule" a statute or regulation when it declares that statute or regulation unconstitutional, and it does not "overrule" a regulation when it sets it aside as inconsistent with a statute. Nor does the Supreme Court "overrule" lower court decisions. It reverses (or vacates) them on direct appeal or abrogates them in later cases. Even if there were any ambiguity in this term (which there is not), that would only have been grounds for renaming, not deletion. Second, one commenter took issue with the inclusion criteria, claiming it was too difficult to determine whether one Supreme Court decision overrules another. While there is room for some debate at the margins, both the list and category were limited to explicit overrules, i.e. situations where the Court uses the magic words "Today we overrule [decision1]" or similar. In the example given by the commenter (whether Employment Division v. Smith overruled Wisconsin v. Yoder), the answer is clearly no. Smith distinguished Yoder. While some commentators argue that there is tension between Smith and Yoder, all reasonable legal writers would concede that Smith did not explicitly overrule Yoder. The fact that some Supreme Court decisions are regarded as in tension with earlier, un-overruled decisions of that Court is insufficient reason to delete this highly useful category for the vast majority of overrules which inarguable and unambiguous (e.g. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce with the unmistakeable language "[Austin] should be and now is overruled."). Further, if it is contended that overrules are irreducibly subjective, the proper move would have been to delete the list itself (and, dare I mention, its other category), not the delete the category which helpfully leads readers to the list and similar cases. Savidan 18:32, 5 May 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 page was listed for deletion on April 2nd, and deleted on April 11th or so, after 2-3 votes for delete questioning the lack of sources and the reliability of sources. It was relisted on April 12th and the creator of the page (which is me) have added 3 credible and properly cited sources in the Chinese language which clearly showed that the person met criteria #1, #2 and #4 on WP:Music. Since it was relisted, there has only been one vote on the discussion, which was for keeping the article, with the reason being that sources have been found and provided, and notability has been noted. However, on April 28th it was deleted by another admin on the grounds "Fails WP:MUSIC and general notability. Consensus is to delete", neither accurate statement. I have since inquired about the article on that admin's talk page, calling out the lack of research on his part, but he diverted the issue and refused to correct it. For this reason I ask that the deletion be looked into and overturned. Timmyshin ( talk) 19:19, 4 May 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 are so many reasons why this MfD should not have been closed early. I'll try to enumerate them as briefly as I can:
Closing down this discussion early without a thoughtful closing summary by an uninvolved admin is a slap in the face to the dozens of editors who took time out to contribute to it. It sends the message that their time was wasted and their input was not valued or considered by anyone. I respectfully ask that this discussion be quickly reopened, not closed until it has been open for a full 7 days, and closed by an uninvolved admin who provides a neutral summary of the discussion. If that is not possible, then I think the MfD should be relisted. ‑Scottywong | express _ 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I put notices on the MFD talk page and Cla's talk page that the MFD closure was at DRV--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |