|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
New evidence as per http://www.exposegangstalking.com/summary and http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/ruins-peoples-lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.58.81 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, September 30, 2013
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 discussion was closed with a no-consensus closure reason, however I'm inclined to accept it, the discussion could have been re-listed, which it wasn't, but the deletion reasons are far from fetched, but actually matches Wikipedia's spirit and guideline. The subject is only notable for his circumstances, but the subject itself is not notable. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 closer describes this as "Bit of an odd close...". That's because the supposed consensus which was recorded was scarcely mentioned in the discussion and no editor had this as their !vote. The close is therefore a supervote contrary to WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." Warden ( talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Warden ( talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 has requested review of the AfD discussion outcome. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. | ||||
Incorrect close, no consensus for "redirect"; close amounts to admin supervote Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I said two things with regard to local coverage. The first thing I said is that I don't think being mentioned in local sources counts as evidence of notability, but being the actual subject of an article might well do. The second thing I said is that I don't think run-of-the-mill routine coverage of the normal functions of, say, local government or school boards is evidence of notability, but the coverage in the Anchorage newspaper is clearly not that at all. The standard position at Deletion Review is that if there's conflict between a SNG and the GNG, the GNG prevails. This is quite normal, and it occurs because someone's notability may be unconnected with their profession. No rational person would delete Kate Middleton even though she's a fashion designer who fails WP:CREATIVE. When you closed the debate did you actually examine Fram's sources at all? I ask because several things you've said suggest to me that you may not have done.— S Marshall T/ C 16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I am not an expert on Wikipedia. I am one person. I cannot believe that so many comments have been written about my name, "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer." I truly do not want nor do I deserve so much attention. My name/s are still redirected to:”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996” which has been posted like this for about two weeks. Why? I am not a politician nor am I a public figure. I have not run for public office for almost a decade. It is ridiculous that my name is only ”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996.” As I wrote above, the campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. If that is the way Wikipedia wants to discuss "my good name," please delete my name completely. I sincerely do not understand why my name was posted on Wikipedia at all. The current redirection to "United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996" harms me professionally. It is as though that is the only thing I have ever done in my life. Ridiculous! Please delete my name from Wikipedia completely. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermeyer ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Overturn and unprotect to allow fresh article creation. (Is semi-protection appropriate instead? I expect unnecessary given the time that has passed, and the intended fresh article stub.) OpenCart is an open source e-commerce web application whose article was deleted five times between November 8, 2006 and April 28, 2010. The article was fully protected after the fifth deletion. The two deletion discussions from 2009 are here and here. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions. I have not seen the older article(s) that were deleted but since protection in 2010 OpenCart has gained notability, and I believe full protection is no longer appropriate. I made a fresh article stub User:OldEcomGuru/OpenCart_article and Kww suggested I raise it here at WP:DRV. (Just for the record - I am NOT OpenCartGuru/Qphoria, who I mention in the article.) The two main sources I found after a basic search have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - they are not press releases. This is even though the article revision I wrote so far, can be viewed as being just a first draft stub. They however should prove notability enough to allow recreation of the article. (The Secunia references include links to other places where the vulnerabilities are discussed, and could be a classed as a third source, i.e. as OpenCart is notable enough since 2010 for security researchers to care about it.) Proving notability under the usual criteria is a general issue with these shopping cart systems (see the articles on PrestaShop and Magento for example); many are notable but proving it can take some time to find the sources. Those two articles for example clearly have not received the same scrutiny from editors yet - and they should (I for one intend to contribute). As an aside, perhaps number of downloads, from a fairly impartial site, such as can be found for WordPress plugins on wordpress.org, can be used as additional criteria on notability. But I digress, as OpenCart is not a WordPress plugin. OldEcomGuru ( talk) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 am new in wikipedia and I have much conflict on the redirect. The page was fully protected and I am the main editor on this page. Damedmillan ( talk) 21:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 meets WP:MUSICBIO #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Her single "Want It All" is in rotation on the following commercial radio stations in the US via reliable tracking source Mediabase User Mark Arsten placed article in my sandbox for me to update with this information and asked that I submit for a restore. See conversation: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Devyn_Rose PinkStaircase ( talk) 16:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Userfied article is now at User:Dogmaticeclectic/The_Dating_Guy Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Attention: scroll down to "Concise summary" below to see a quickly summarized version of these arguments. Attention (for closing administrator): I have left a "Note for closing administrator" below. Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" this is the case here. I have found 4 additional WP:RS and an additional link for an old one, bringing the total to 7, as follows: The old reliable sources:
An old reliable source with an additional link:
The new reliable sources:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 meets wp:GNG, 2 reliable sources On Being; Denver Post. Duckduckgo ( talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was updated with notable references. -- Dobro77 ( talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) This was deleted based on the "view" of two people prior to the article being revised. The article had been revised and the references were put into the article were valid. Was the article even read by the editor who deleted it? Does two comments qualify for a deletion? I thought this was a group process. That is not a fair process. A lot of work went into revising the article with notable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobro77 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. All references to Youtube, IMDB, and other fan-based on line webpages had been deleted prior to the article being deleted. I can not locate the deleted article to do any template citation edits or go over the noted reference issue. Unfortunately I only saved an earlier version. Past Pitfalls and external link advice noted, Thank you, and thank you for your help in getting this restored.:* -- Dobro77 ( talk)
There are newspaper references in the article. There are references from google books. Per below. Also links to visual television credits. Are newspaper references not a notable source? -- Dobro77 ( talk) http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/jan/04/get-the-blues-with-the-preachers-on-jan-5-in/ http://www.vannuysnewspress.com/2012/04/02/entertainment-tips-of-the-week-4-2-12/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/18P5fCvay4aYmaj8JsAK0qstKgZiUptb79VqhbX3my9o/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18P5fCvay4aYmaj8JsAK0qstKgZiUptb79VqhbX3my9o/edit http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=i4BIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O20DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6776,1055708&dq=david-reo+television&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobro77 ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 subject of the article went to Ron Ritzman to ask why it was deleted; he'sn't so active anymore, so I've responded to it. I think he is notable for producing at least two notable hits ( Take a Chance on Me#Erasure version and Never Let Me Down Again) and for being co-nominated for Grammy Award for Producer of the Year, Non-Classical, not least the fact that there is nothing on WP:MUSICBIO about producers. Laun chba ller 14:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Since the deletion of the article in April 2013, the subject model has appeared as the lead actress of the Bollywood film Nasha, which released in July 2013. The reason for deletion noted by the closing admin User:King of Hearts at the AfD was WP:BLP1E. I request that the article should be undeleted based on this new information we have. Also i would like to point out that the article was actually kept post the 1st AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poonam Pandey where the admin User:Scottywong had kept the article for the subject being notable enough. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 has been merged and redirected into state-sponsored terrorism and it's last revision is here. Only four users participated in the AfD discussion, two voted for rename and two for merge. I, the writer of the article, was not active at Wikipedia back then and didn't have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The original title was "Saudi Arabia and terrorism" (it was moved by another user), and it contained materials about both the state and the people of the country. Moreover, the article was discussing massive Saudi funding for Wahhabism and Salafism, the ideology behind Islamic terrorism. So merging it into the state-sponsored terrorism article was not a good idea. In fact, only one-third of the article is about state-sponsored terrorism in particular (only the first paragraph of the article has been moved and preserved). I do agree that the article is not well-written, it looks like a bunch of different information that are just put together without being organized and written very well (I'm not good at writing English article), but we should tag it with a couple of templates in this case instead of merging/deleting it, the subject merits a separate entry IMO. By the way, the article can be expanded more, as there are new materials about recent Saudi support of hard-line Islamic jihadists in Syrian civil war. [36] [37] -- Z 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Procedural nomination. The page is currently a protected redirect. A new draft on Styles, independent of the previously deleted version, has been written at User:Katcalifornia/sandbox. Since the article was deleted twice, creation of a new version was made contingent on a deletion review. I don't have much of an opinion myself. Evidence for individual notability is not overwhelming, but present, including some sources focusing on him not present in the previous version. If this were a draft at WP:AFC I'd likely accept it, so I tend towards allowing creation of an article in place of the redirect. Huon ( talk) 00:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
reflist
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Deauxma is a pornographic actress whose article was deleted four times between June 17, 2006 and May 11, 2007. The article was fully protected after the fourth deletion, which is understandable since it was recreated many times back when she did not meet the notability criteria on WP:PORNBIO. It has been over six years since then and I believe that Deauxma's article should be restored. Even though the article was deleted four times, there was only one deletion discussion for it here, which took place seven years ago. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions. Deauxma was not notable back then but she is now a popular performer in the adult film industry. WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" and Deauxma meets that criteria because she was nominated for two AVN Awards for "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" in 2011 and 2013 and an XBIZ Award for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" in 2013. Not only should this article be restored, but it should also be unlocked. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 does not appear to be a "no consensus". the sole keep !vote argues on the basis of inherent notability and WP:MUSTBESOURCES, without actually showing sources. LibStar ( talk) 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The administrator that deleted this category has admitted he thought it should be deleted. Thus, he should have participated in the debate, not imposed his will by closing the debate. The weight of the arguments was that whether or not this category should exist should be tied to whether or not we kept Category:Women sociologists. That category has not been deleted, and seems unlikely to. In discussions with the administrator about the deletion a strong argument was put to not delete this put not the other, but he suggested doing a DRV, so I figured that was the best course. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
TIPPS is the first TOEFL and SAT test prep center in Turkey. Furthermore, it was deleted for a reason (A7) that explicitly states pages about educational institutions cannot be deleted under this criterion. TIPPS is an educational institution. Sercandemirtas ( talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
New evidence as per http://www.exposegangstalking.com/summary and http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/ruins-peoples-lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.58.81 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, September 30, 2013
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 discussion was closed with a no-consensus closure reason, however I'm inclined to accept it, the discussion could have been re-listed, which it wasn't, but the deletion reasons are far from fetched, but actually matches Wikipedia's spirit and guideline. The subject is only notable for his circumstances, but the subject itself is not notable. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 closer describes this as "Bit of an odd close...". That's because the supposed consensus which was recorded was scarcely mentioned in the discussion and no editor had this as their !vote. The close is therefore a supervote contrary to WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." Warden ( talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Warden ( talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 has requested review of the AfD discussion outcome. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. | ||||
Incorrect close, no consensus for "redirect"; close amounts to admin supervote Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I said two things with regard to local coverage. The first thing I said is that I don't think being mentioned in local sources counts as evidence of notability, but being the actual subject of an article might well do. The second thing I said is that I don't think run-of-the-mill routine coverage of the normal functions of, say, local government or school boards is evidence of notability, but the coverage in the Anchorage newspaper is clearly not that at all. The standard position at Deletion Review is that if there's conflict between a SNG and the GNG, the GNG prevails. This is quite normal, and it occurs because someone's notability may be unconnected with their profession. No rational person would delete Kate Middleton even though she's a fashion designer who fails WP:CREATIVE. When you closed the debate did you actually examine Fram's sources at all? I ask because several things you've said suggest to me that you may not have done.— S Marshall T/ C 16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I am not an expert on Wikipedia. I am one person. I cannot believe that so many comments have been written about my name, "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer." I truly do not want nor do I deserve so much attention. My name/s are still redirected to:”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996” which has been posted like this for about two weeks. Why? I am not a politician nor am I a public figure. I have not run for public office for almost a decade. It is ridiculous that my name is only ”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996.” As I wrote above, the campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. If that is the way Wikipedia wants to discuss "my good name," please delete my name completely. I sincerely do not understand why my name was posted on Wikipedia at all. The current redirection to "United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996" harms me professionally. It is as though that is the only thing I have ever done in my life. Ridiculous! Please delete my name from Wikipedia completely. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermeyer ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Overturn and unprotect to allow fresh article creation. (Is semi-protection appropriate instead? I expect unnecessary given the time that has passed, and the intended fresh article stub.) OpenCart is an open source e-commerce web application whose article was deleted five times between November 8, 2006 and April 28, 2010. The article was fully protected after the fifth deletion. The two deletion discussions from 2009 are here and here. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions. I have not seen the older article(s) that were deleted but since protection in 2010 OpenCart has gained notability, and I believe full protection is no longer appropriate. I made a fresh article stub User:OldEcomGuru/OpenCart_article and Kww suggested I raise it here at WP:DRV. (Just for the record - I am NOT OpenCartGuru/Qphoria, who I mention in the article.) The two main sources I found after a basic search have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - they are not press releases. This is even though the article revision I wrote so far, can be viewed as being just a first draft stub. They however should prove notability enough to allow recreation of the article. (The Secunia references include links to other places where the vulnerabilities are discussed, and could be a classed as a third source, i.e. as OpenCart is notable enough since 2010 for security researchers to care about it.) Proving notability under the usual criteria is a general issue with these shopping cart systems (see the articles on PrestaShop and Magento for example); many are notable but proving it can take some time to find the sources. Those two articles for example clearly have not received the same scrutiny from editors yet - and they should (I for one intend to contribute). As an aside, perhaps number of downloads, from a fairly impartial site, such as can be found for WordPress plugins on wordpress.org, can be used as additional criteria on notability. But I digress, as OpenCart is not a WordPress plugin. OldEcomGuru ( talk) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 am new in wikipedia and I have much conflict on the redirect. The page was fully protected and I am the main editor on this page. Damedmillan ( talk) 21:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 meets WP:MUSICBIO #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Her single "Want It All" is in rotation on the following commercial radio stations in the US via reliable tracking source Mediabase User Mark Arsten placed article in my sandbox for me to update with this information and asked that I submit for a restore. See conversation: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Devyn_Rose PinkStaircase ( talk) 16:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Userfied article is now at User:Dogmaticeclectic/The_Dating_Guy Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Attention: scroll down to "Concise summary" below to see a quickly summarized version of these arguments. Attention (for closing administrator): I have left a "Note for closing administrator" below. Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" this is the case here. I have found 4 additional WP:RS and an additional link for an old one, bringing the total to 7, as follows: The old reliable sources:
An old reliable source with an additional link:
The new reliable sources:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 meets wp:GNG, 2 reliable sources On Being; Denver Post. Duckduckgo ( talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was updated with notable references. -- Dobro77 ( talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) This was deleted based on the "view" of two people prior to the article being revised. The article had been revised and the references were put into the article were valid. Was the article even read by the editor who deleted it? Does two comments qualify for a deletion? I thought this was a group process. That is not a fair process. A lot of work went into revising the article with notable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobro77 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. All references to Youtube, IMDB, and other fan-based on line webpages had been deleted prior to the article being deleted. I can not locate the deleted article to do any template citation edits or go over the noted reference issue. Unfortunately I only saved an earlier version. Past Pitfalls and external link advice noted, Thank you, and thank you for your help in getting this restored.:* -- Dobro77 ( talk)
There are newspaper references in the article. There are references from google books. Per below. Also links to visual television credits. Are newspaper references not a notable source? -- Dobro77 ( talk) http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/jan/04/get-the-blues-with-the-preachers-on-jan-5-in/ http://www.vannuysnewspress.com/2012/04/02/entertainment-tips-of-the-week-4-2-12/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/18P5fCvay4aYmaj8JsAK0qstKgZiUptb79VqhbX3my9o/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18P5fCvay4aYmaj8JsAK0qstKgZiUptb79VqhbX3my9o/edit http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=i4BIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O20DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6776,1055708&dq=david-reo+television&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobro77 ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 subject of the article went to Ron Ritzman to ask why it was deleted; he'sn't so active anymore, so I've responded to it. I think he is notable for producing at least two notable hits ( Take a Chance on Me#Erasure version and Never Let Me Down Again) and for being co-nominated for Grammy Award for Producer of the Year, Non-Classical, not least the fact that there is nothing on WP:MUSICBIO about producers. Laun chba ller 14:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Since the deletion of the article in April 2013, the subject model has appeared as the lead actress of the Bollywood film Nasha, which released in July 2013. The reason for deletion noted by the closing admin User:King of Hearts at the AfD was WP:BLP1E. I request that the article should be undeleted based on this new information we have. Also i would like to point out that the article was actually kept post the 1st AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poonam Pandey where the admin User:Scottywong had kept the article for the subject being notable enough. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 has been merged and redirected into state-sponsored terrorism and it's last revision is here. Only four users participated in the AfD discussion, two voted for rename and two for merge. I, the writer of the article, was not active at Wikipedia back then and didn't have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The original title was "Saudi Arabia and terrorism" (it was moved by another user), and it contained materials about both the state and the people of the country. Moreover, the article was discussing massive Saudi funding for Wahhabism and Salafism, the ideology behind Islamic terrorism. So merging it into the state-sponsored terrorism article was not a good idea. In fact, only one-third of the article is about state-sponsored terrorism in particular (only the first paragraph of the article has been moved and preserved). I do agree that the article is not well-written, it looks like a bunch of different information that are just put together without being organized and written very well (I'm not good at writing English article), but we should tag it with a couple of templates in this case instead of merging/deleting it, the subject merits a separate entry IMO. By the way, the article can be expanded more, as there are new materials about recent Saudi support of hard-line Islamic jihadists in Syrian civil war. [36] [37] -- Z 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Procedural nomination. The page is currently a protected redirect. A new draft on Styles, independent of the previously deleted version, has been written at User:Katcalifornia/sandbox. Since the article was deleted twice, creation of a new version was made contingent on a deletion review. I don't have much of an opinion myself. Evidence for individual notability is not overwhelming, but present, including some sources focusing on him not present in the previous version. If this were a draft at WP:AFC I'd likely accept it, so I tend towards allowing creation of an article in place of the redirect. Huon ( talk) 00:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
reflist
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Deauxma is a pornographic actress whose article was deleted four times between June 17, 2006 and May 11, 2007. The article was fully protected after the fourth deletion, which is understandable since it was recreated many times back when she did not meet the notability criteria on WP:PORNBIO. It has been over six years since then and I believe that Deauxma's article should be restored. Even though the article was deleted four times, there was only one deletion discussion for it here, which took place seven years ago. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions. Deauxma was not notable back then but she is now a popular performer in the adult film industry. WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" and Deauxma meets that criteria because she was nominated for two AVN Awards for "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" in 2011 and 2013 and an XBIZ Award for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" in 2013. Not only should this article be restored, but it should also be unlocked. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 does not appear to be a "no consensus". the sole keep !vote argues on the basis of inherent notability and WP:MUSTBESOURCES, without actually showing sources. LibStar ( talk) 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The administrator that deleted this category has admitted he thought it should be deleted. Thus, he should have participated in the debate, not imposed his will by closing the debate. The weight of the arguments was that whether or not this category should exist should be tied to whether or not we kept Category:Women sociologists. That category has not been deleted, and seems unlikely to. In discussions with the administrator about the deletion a strong argument was put to not delete this put not the other, but he suggested doing a DRV, so I figured that was the best course. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
TIPPS is the first TOEFL and SAT test prep center in Turkey. Furthermore, it was deleted for a reason (A7) that explicitly states pages about educational institutions cannot be deleted under this criterion. TIPPS is an educational institution. Sercandemirtas ( talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |