|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Allow recreation per AFCR consensus for this. Page was salted 9 years ago as an probable attack page were made to repost ClueBot 4 times I will review the deletion of Cluebot as I want to redirect to ClueBot NG pinging my operator 66.87.64.113 ( talk) 20:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 was a fair use headshot photograph of the perpetrator of the
2017 Congressional baseball shooting, used to identify him in the section about him in that article. I think the closer erred in closing this discussion. Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC, which should have resulted in a "no consensus, default to keep" outcome, given that no one side's arguments seem to offer a particularly more compelling interpretation of the NFCC. The closer's reference to "precedent" is mistaken in that Wikipedia does not apply (binding) precedent, but looks at each case individually; this is even more so where the "precedent" is exactly one closure by the same closer themselves, and took place on a notoriously poorly attended forum such as FfD, where individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus. The closer has replied to these concerns in detail on their talk page, which I appreciate. They argue that the "keep" opinions did not (explicitly) address the NFCC, but in my view this should not be necessary. The NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy, which ordinary editors can't be expected to know by heart. The "keep" opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot. Sandstein 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 is notable per WP:GNG. There are Wikipedia articles about works of art that have received much, much less coverage. This article was nominated for deletion very soon after its creation, and editors voted to delete the article as a stub. The draft has been expanded, and sourcing clearly shows notability. I anticipate several editors who participated in the AfD discussion will return to reiterate their previously expressed opinions, but I'm hoping some uninvolved editors will cast a vote to overturn the deletion after assessing sourcing. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
-- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam ( talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 character is an IBHOF referee class of 2015. [1] It appears that there is a substantial coverage of the character in G news [2], Google Books [3] as well as other sources online. Please undelete the page, so it can improved if it was 'poorly' written at the start. The admin who deleted the page Joe Decker is not responding. Thank you. Parviziskender ( talk) 13:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Notoriety since deletion in 2009. Significant new information has come to light. Billboard chart #1 Jethro Tull: The String Quartets: /info/en/?search=Jethro_Tull_–_The_String_Quartets. Other albums include Thick As A Brick 2. Homo Erraticus, conductor/arranger Quadrophenia Theatre production UK, 2009. Quadrophenia theatre tour. Jethro Tull Orchestral DVD and more. As a composer: Welsh National Opera, U.K.- title, I Had An Angel. Three Choirs International Music Festival 2013, U.K.- title, The Bargee's Wife: http://seenandheard-international.com/2013/08/the-bargees-wife-closes-the-three-choirs-festival-impressively/. Cheltenham International Music Festival 2017, U.K. - title The Gloucester Magnificat. Theatre Music, Bristol Old Vic, U.K. title Trojan Women 2016. More…The article need updating once reinstated. LucyLou2002 ( talk) 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Promo Language Bulle Shah ( talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Comment It was the first time I had written on this title while being aware it's previous deletion records. The matter was with the language, my article was labeled as no different from the previous ones. But I have never seen how previous ones were because they were actually deleted. I wrote the article after having a good read around the other articles of the similar kind. I was ready to improvise but it was speedy deletion so I was left with no choice. The company passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources. And I believe Bulle Shah ( talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC) just having a bad article written on a notable subject does not disqualify it from having a Wikipedia page.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 was a U20 footballer deleted as NN. Since the deletion Arkorful has played (rather unsuccessfully) for Hadjuk Split in the 2014/15 season and currently plays for SK Babīte. [5] [6] That would seem to be enough to get him past WP:NFOOTY. I have contacted the deleting admin but he is not very active and it is unclear to me that he would have the authority to overtun such an AFD in any case. Spinning Spark 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. Besides, the previous deletion review was inappropriately closed early. It doesn't matter who brought a review, or what that editor's motives were, when uninvolved editors i good standing have found enough merit in the case to favor overturning the close. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Discussion was only open for two hours, before non-admin-closure as "Speedy Keep". Due to the fact that the article page history [7] involves multiple admins redirecting the page, it should've been allowed to either run its course for the full time for a WP:AfD, or be closed by another admin to firmly establish the outcome. Sagecandor ( talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Aaron Bastani of Novara Media has appeared on Sky news multiple times during the run up the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Novara Media has recently hosted Jeremy Corbyn , Paul Mason, Yanis Varoufakis, John McDonnell, Lily Allen, Caroline Lucas, Alex Salmond and more on their various video articles. They are one of the few media commentators that correctly predicted the results of the election. They are a vital voice for left wing politics which is otherwise ignored by much of mainstream media. I genuinely believe this article's taken down for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Aaron on Sky News [8] [9] Jeremy Corbyn Interview [10] John McDonell Interview [11] Alex Salmond Interview [12] Paul Mason Interview [13] Caroline Lucas Interview [14] Patrickbettington ( talk) 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see additional References below, from another 7 major UK news outlets, all discussing Bastani and Novari Media to different extents. Aaron Bastani has over 33k Twitter followers
[1]
Novara Media has over 28k
[2] Guardian Article from last September listing both Novara Media and Aaron Bastani as part of New left movement [3] Mention in Recent BBC article
[4] Mention in Daily Express
[5] Canary Article
[6] Spike Magazine
[7] Aljazeera
[8] The Sun
[9] The Mirror
[10] Patrickbettington ( talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC) At what point does it change from being on the news a few times, to people talking about them? He is a political commentator running and representing a media outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC) References
openDemocracy interview with co-founder James Butler about Novara Media as a project
[1] Expression of support for a Novara Media fundraiser on the
Verso Books blog
[2] Discussion on BBC 4's The Media Show about new media organisations, including Novara Media, and their effect on the
June 2017 General Election
[3] Endorsement and description of Novara at the start of
Jacobin's radio interview with
Richard Seymour
[4] References
User:Arms & - Apologies. The timing of Aaron Bastani page coming down was unfortunate, 3 days after an election in which he was extremely vocal, I was aware of the principles, but thought they may have been circumnavigated. I've been sufficiently convinced by a number of users that it was not political. What would be the next step in order to "relist" Novara Media? Patience? Patrickbettington ( talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Are further references required, or is the a consensus on Notability and move to relist ? Patrickbettington ( talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 very near future, these will be the first Summer Olympics to have no official host city. By now, there should be at least SOME information so that the 2032 Summer Olympics will actually have an article. For anyone who thinks this article should stay deleted, please reveal exactly what you support waiting until before re-creating the article. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 was submitted after thoroughly going through and following all the guidelines specified by Wikipedia. I strongly believe that Wikipedia encourages people to make valuable and informative contributions and that is exactly the reason why I attempted to create this article of a company which has been in operation for more than 16 years. Kindly have a review and guide me on the steps I should follow in this regard. Imorningstar85 ( talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
WP:N Was discussed and decided to delete back on 3rd June, but wasn't actioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Footballs Conscience ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
removing the page was agreed upon, deleting the article history was not agreed upon Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is also for Republic of Kekistan, and specifically to overturn the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 12 to prevent redirects. Both Kekistan and Republic of Kekistan were full hoax articles, which were rightly deleted. You'd have to see the deleted content to appreciate how hoaxy they were - in short they were dressed up as proper countries. The Deletion Review was closed with a (small) consensus against the creation of redirects, and recreation of the full articles ended up with both titles being salted. I've received applications to remove the protection ( here and here) in order to create redirects. One of the other deleting admins passed it on to me ( here). I've basically passed it on to the closer of the DRV ( here) who recommended DRV as the appropriate venue. This seems like a formality and the bar shouldn't be too high to create these redirects. I move to overturn the previous DRV decision which prevented redirects. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
We need to review whether G11 is really appropriate. This article was actually kept at AfD 8 years ago. However, it was speedy deleted anyway several times later. The users who deleted the page since the AfD were NawlinWiki, Jimfbleak (twice), Vanamonde93, and Dlohcierekim. The page was also previously salted by There'sNoTime. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Dennis Brown provided a novel analysis, in which he discounted every single !vote and agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted. While his detailed rationale and cordial response to my raising the topic are commendable, the fact remains that the numerical !vote was 5 vs. the nominator to not delete the article. Dennis Brown erred in counting the 2 merges and redirect as opinions favoring deletion, based on his own reading of how future editing might look. Multiple sources and another merge target had been raised in the discussion, and while it pains me to call it that, the close amounts to an inappropriate supervote, and as such either a relist or a no consensus outcome would have been preferable. Discussion with closing admin Dennis Brown concludes here Jclemens ( talk) 00:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 actress is not a one film wonder as described, she has 1 movie, 1 short, 2 commercials and multiple music videos to her credit. There is ample news generated and I can tab articles, she is also signing new movies so think this should be undeleted. Shyamkrishnan2k ( talk) 06:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 ( talk) 14:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 discovered that, since deletion, " Good Articles" was re-created this year. Therefore, two weeks ago, I contacted another admin who deleted the latter two, but I've yet to receive a response. Also, the admin who deleted the first two redirects to WP:Good articles eleven years ago is currently inactive since 2008. Therefore, I would like to have the deletion of these above redirects reviewed. I thought about enforcing WP:G4 to have that re-created page deleted. However, years passed, so I thought consensus can change to have the redirects undeleted. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article is about a Grammy Award winning producer. There are over 20 articles that should link to this deleted article but instead link to the wrong Mike Mangini who coincidentally was born in the same year and is also in the music industry. Wikipedia articles that incorrectly link to the wrong Mangini include: 43rd Annual Grammy Awards, The Best of Joss Stone 2003–2009, Don't Cha Wanna Ride, Mind Body & Soul, Raymond Angry, Righteous Love and many more. See: https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/mike-mangini https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/michael-mangini 147.9.66.69 ( talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
It is obvious to me why this template, separate from {{ uw-delete1}}, has continued to exist until now. This reason doesn't appear to have been understood. I have used this template frequently, because the wording of {{ uw-delete1}} is not suitable for the scenario whereby a user has blanked a page completely (or otherwise made it such that it would be deleted as {{ db-nocontent}} if there were no meaningful page history). In this scenario, the problem is not that the user deleted content without explaining why, but that they left behind a page with no content whatsoever. And indeed, the user may have explained why. The user who blanked the page is likely to be a newbie who mistakenly believes blanking a page is the way to go about getting it deleted. As such, we need a message like this in order to educate such users of the correct approach. — Smjg ( talk) 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 spam; the company's main claim to notability arises from the Coopers & Lybrand audit failure and the Senatorial investigation into the company's collapse, which left the company unable to fully meet its obligations to its policyholders. You can view a few snippets of the report here. Compy book ( talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 used this, and it worked. If the creator of {{ refimprove}} said they wanted it deleted, would it be deleted? Of course not. No need to fix something that's not broken; the use of Lua was kinda cool when the Scribunto extension was new, but now, it's used EVERYWHERE for purposes that are better handled by a combination of Lua and ParserFunctions (example: {{ rfd}} dumps #invoke: code on pages when it's substed - even though the only thing the module is needed for is to display an error message on non-redirects). KMF ( talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Allow recreation per AFCR consensus for this. Page was salted 9 years ago as an probable attack page were made to repost ClueBot 4 times I will review the deletion of Cluebot as I want to redirect to ClueBot NG pinging my operator 66.87.64.113 ( talk) 20:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 was a fair use headshot photograph of the perpetrator of the
2017 Congressional baseball shooting, used to identify him in the section about him in that article. I think the closer erred in closing this discussion. Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC, which should have resulted in a "no consensus, default to keep" outcome, given that no one side's arguments seem to offer a particularly more compelling interpretation of the NFCC. The closer's reference to "precedent" is mistaken in that Wikipedia does not apply (binding) precedent, but looks at each case individually; this is even more so where the "precedent" is exactly one closure by the same closer themselves, and took place on a notoriously poorly attended forum such as FfD, where individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus. The closer has replied to these concerns in detail on their talk page, which I appreciate. They argue that the "keep" opinions did not (explicitly) address the NFCC, but in my view this should not be necessary. The NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy, which ordinary editors can't be expected to know by heart. The "keep" opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot. Sandstein 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 is notable per WP:GNG. There are Wikipedia articles about works of art that have received much, much less coverage. This article was nominated for deletion very soon after its creation, and editors voted to delete the article as a stub. The draft has been expanded, and sourcing clearly shows notability. I anticipate several editors who participated in the AfD discussion will return to reiterate their previously expressed opinions, but I'm hoping some uninvolved editors will cast a vote to overturn the deletion after assessing sourcing. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
-- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam ( talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 character is an IBHOF referee class of 2015. [1] It appears that there is a substantial coverage of the character in G news [2], Google Books [3] as well as other sources online. Please undelete the page, so it can improved if it was 'poorly' written at the start. The admin who deleted the page Joe Decker is not responding. Thank you. Parviziskender ( talk) 13:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Notoriety since deletion in 2009. Significant new information has come to light. Billboard chart #1 Jethro Tull: The String Quartets: /info/en/?search=Jethro_Tull_–_The_String_Quartets. Other albums include Thick As A Brick 2. Homo Erraticus, conductor/arranger Quadrophenia Theatre production UK, 2009. Quadrophenia theatre tour. Jethro Tull Orchestral DVD and more. As a composer: Welsh National Opera, U.K.- title, I Had An Angel. Three Choirs International Music Festival 2013, U.K.- title, The Bargee's Wife: http://seenandheard-international.com/2013/08/the-bargees-wife-closes-the-three-choirs-festival-impressively/. Cheltenham International Music Festival 2017, U.K. - title The Gloucester Magnificat. Theatre Music, Bristol Old Vic, U.K. title Trojan Women 2016. More…The article need updating once reinstated. LucyLou2002 ( talk) 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Promo Language Bulle Shah ( talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Comment It was the first time I had written on this title while being aware it's previous deletion records. The matter was with the language, my article was labeled as no different from the previous ones. But I have never seen how previous ones were because they were actually deleted. I wrote the article after having a good read around the other articles of the similar kind. I was ready to improvise but it was speedy deletion so I was left with no choice. The company passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources. And I believe Bulle Shah ( talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC) just having a bad article written on a notable subject does not disqualify it from having a Wikipedia page.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 was a U20 footballer deleted as NN. Since the deletion Arkorful has played (rather unsuccessfully) for Hadjuk Split in the 2014/15 season and currently plays for SK Babīte. [5] [6] That would seem to be enough to get him past WP:NFOOTY. I have contacted the deleting admin but he is not very active and it is unclear to me that he would have the authority to overtun such an AFD in any case. Spinning Spark 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. Besides, the previous deletion review was inappropriately closed early. It doesn't matter who brought a review, or what that editor's motives were, when uninvolved editors i good standing have found enough merit in the case to favor overturning the close. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Discussion was only open for two hours, before non-admin-closure as "Speedy Keep". Due to the fact that the article page history [7] involves multiple admins redirecting the page, it should've been allowed to either run its course for the full time for a WP:AfD, or be closed by another admin to firmly establish the outcome. Sagecandor ( talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Aaron Bastani of Novara Media has appeared on Sky news multiple times during the run up the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Novara Media has recently hosted Jeremy Corbyn , Paul Mason, Yanis Varoufakis, John McDonnell, Lily Allen, Caroline Lucas, Alex Salmond and more on their various video articles. They are one of the few media commentators that correctly predicted the results of the election. They are a vital voice for left wing politics which is otherwise ignored by much of mainstream media. I genuinely believe this article's taken down for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Aaron on Sky News [8] [9] Jeremy Corbyn Interview [10] John McDonell Interview [11] Alex Salmond Interview [12] Paul Mason Interview [13] Caroline Lucas Interview [14] Patrickbettington ( talk) 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see additional References below, from another 7 major UK news outlets, all discussing Bastani and Novari Media to different extents. Aaron Bastani has over 33k Twitter followers
[1]
Novara Media has over 28k
[2] Guardian Article from last September listing both Novara Media and Aaron Bastani as part of New left movement [3] Mention in Recent BBC article
[4] Mention in Daily Express
[5] Canary Article
[6] Spike Magazine
[7] Aljazeera
[8] The Sun
[9] The Mirror
[10] Patrickbettington ( talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC) At what point does it change from being on the news a few times, to people talking about them? He is a political commentator running and representing a media outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC) References
openDemocracy interview with co-founder James Butler about Novara Media as a project
[1] Expression of support for a Novara Media fundraiser on the
Verso Books blog
[2] Discussion on BBC 4's The Media Show about new media organisations, including Novara Media, and their effect on the
June 2017 General Election
[3] Endorsement and description of Novara at the start of
Jacobin's radio interview with
Richard Seymour
[4] References
User:Arms & - Apologies. The timing of Aaron Bastani page coming down was unfortunate, 3 days after an election in which he was extremely vocal, I was aware of the principles, but thought they may have been circumnavigated. I've been sufficiently convinced by a number of users that it was not political. What would be the next step in order to "relist" Novara Media? Patience? Patrickbettington ( talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Are further references required, or is the a consensus on Notability and move to relist ? Patrickbettington ( talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 very near future, these will be the first Summer Olympics to have no official host city. By now, there should be at least SOME information so that the 2032 Summer Olympics will actually have an article. For anyone who thinks this article should stay deleted, please reveal exactly what you support waiting until before re-creating the article. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 was submitted after thoroughly going through and following all the guidelines specified by Wikipedia. I strongly believe that Wikipedia encourages people to make valuable and informative contributions and that is exactly the reason why I attempted to create this article of a company which has been in operation for more than 16 years. Kindly have a review and guide me on the steps I should follow in this regard. Imorningstar85 ( talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
WP:N Was discussed and decided to delete back on 3rd June, but wasn't actioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Footballs Conscience ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
removing the page was agreed upon, deleting the article history was not agreed upon Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is also for Republic of Kekistan, and specifically to overturn the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 12 to prevent redirects. Both Kekistan and Republic of Kekistan were full hoax articles, which were rightly deleted. You'd have to see the deleted content to appreciate how hoaxy they were - in short they were dressed up as proper countries. The Deletion Review was closed with a (small) consensus against the creation of redirects, and recreation of the full articles ended up with both titles being salted. I've received applications to remove the protection ( here and here) in order to create redirects. One of the other deleting admins passed it on to me ( here). I've basically passed it on to the closer of the DRV ( here) who recommended DRV as the appropriate venue. This seems like a formality and the bar shouldn't be too high to create these redirects. I move to overturn the previous DRV decision which prevented redirects. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
We need to review whether G11 is really appropriate. This article was actually kept at AfD 8 years ago. However, it was speedy deleted anyway several times later. The users who deleted the page since the AfD were NawlinWiki, Jimfbleak (twice), Vanamonde93, and Dlohcierekim. The page was also previously salted by There'sNoTime. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
Dennis Brown provided a novel analysis, in which he discounted every single !vote and agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted. While his detailed rationale and cordial response to my raising the topic are commendable, the fact remains that the numerical !vote was 5 vs. the nominator to not delete the article. Dennis Brown erred in counting the 2 merges and redirect as opinions favoring deletion, based on his own reading of how future editing might look. Multiple sources and another merge target had been raised in the discussion, and while it pains me to call it that, the close amounts to an inappropriate supervote, and as such either a relist or a no consensus outcome would have been preferable. Discussion with closing admin Dennis Brown concludes here Jclemens ( talk) 00:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 actress is not a one film wonder as described, she has 1 movie, 1 short, 2 commercials and multiple music videos to her credit. There is ample news generated and I can tab articles, she is also signing new movies so think this should be undeleted. Shyamkrishnan2k ( talk) 06:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 ( talk) 14:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 discovered that, since deletion, " Good Articles" was re-created this year. Therefore, two weeks ago, I contacted another admin who deleted the latter two, but I've yet to receive a response. Also, the admin who deleted the first two redirects to WP:Good articles eleven years ago is currently inactive since 2008. Therefore, I would like to have the deletion of these above redirects reviewed. I thought about enforcing WP:G4 to have that re-created page deleted. However, years passed, so I thought consensus can change to have the redirects undeleted. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article is about a Grammy Award winning producer. There are over 20 articles that should link to this deleted article but instead link to the wrong Mike Mangini who coincidentally was born in the same year and is also in the music industry. Wikipedia articles that incorrectly link to the wrong Mangini include: 43rd Annual Grammy Awards, The Best of Joss Stone 2003–2009, Don't Cha Wanna Ride, Mind Body & Soul, Raymond Angry, Righteous Love and many more. See: https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/mike-mangini https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/michael-mangini 147.9.66.69 ( talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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. |
It is obvious to me why this template, separate from {{ uw-delete1}}, has continued to exist until now. This reason doesn't appear to have been understood. I have used this template frequently, because the wording of {{ uw-delete1}} is not suitable for the scenario whereby a user has blanked a page completely (or otherwise made it such that it would be deleted as {{ db-nocontent}} if there were no meaningful page history). In this scenario, the problem is not that the user deleted content without explaining why, but that they left behind a page with no content whatsoever. And indeed, the user may have explained why. The user who blanked the page is likely to be a newbie who mistakenly believes blanking a page is the way to go about getting it deleted. As such, we need a message like this in order to educate such users of the correct approach. — Smjg ( talk) 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 spam; the company's main claim to notability arises from the Coopers & Lybrand audit failure and the Senatorial investigation into the company's collapse, which left the company unable to fully meet its obligations to its policyholders. You can view a few snippets of the report here. Compy book ( talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review 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 used this, and it worked. If the creator of {{ refimprove}} said they wanted it deleted, would it be deleted? Of course not. No need to fix something that's not broken; the use of Lua was kinda cool when the Scribunto extension was new, but now, it's used EVERYWHERE for purposes that are better handled by a combination of Lua and ParserFunctions (example: {{ rfd}} dumps #invoke: code on pages when it's substed - even though the only thing the module is needed for is to display an error message on non-redirects). KMF ( talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |