|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Incorrectly deleted as G12 COPYVIO. Article was paraphrased from Russian sources - not a copy. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:51, 29 September 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. |
Page deleted without real debate DanielFarad ( talk) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The page was deleted after a 2 against 1 vote debate over notability and I believe the people involved were not familiar with the video production field. The guy is a well established video director and is recognized worldwide, having worked with the biggest bands and artists. Please find here a list of references about Awards and nominations, interviews and news: Awards and Nominations Skrillex and Wiwek - Killa ft. Elliphant (Still In The Cage)
Zedd - Clarity
Deftones - You've Seen the Butcher
The New cities - Dead End, Countdown
Imagine Dragons - I bet my life Interviews
In the News
References
References
DanielFarad ( talk) 12:48, 30 September 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. |
Clearly the arguemtns in favor of deletion were grounded in policy. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk 06:27, 28 September 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. |
Significant new information and continued coverage support subject has far surpassed WP:BLP1E issues. See User:Paulmcdonald/Holly Neher for draft copy. Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
All of these articles discuss the individual in more detail and include coverage of subsequent events.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:07, 27 September 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 am new to the process of Wikipedia editing and deletion reviews. I'll do my best to make the case correctly. Recommending the reinclusion of italki (the language education service) from deletion, using this page as content User:Kshanghai/Italki. Previous versions of the page were not well referenced WP:RS, and did not meet the standards for objectivity WP:NPOV, notability WP:GNG, and for being too close to corporate promotion WP:CORPSPAM. New page content tries to address this by: 1. Rewriting the previous text to be simpler, and more neutral. 2. Adding references for sources that are reputable, including major news organizations and industry blogs that cover technology or language education WP:RS. 3. Removed text that could be viewed as promotional. Using criteria of neutrality and notability, removing italki from Wikipedia seems inconsistent. It is arguably the largest company in this segment, and significantly smaller companies are included in Wikipedia. For disclosure of conflicts of interest, I am employed by the company. WP:AVOIDCOI Reference to the previous deletion discussion: Kshanghai ( talk) 07:51, 26 September 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 believe that I present significant new information since the article was deleted To establish notability of CRMNEXT I present the below arguments, First Indian Cloud based CRM solution http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/crmnext-launches-indias-first-cloud-bsaed-digital-crm-platform/articleshow/50866242.cms One of the largest CRM solutions with 40,000 http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/crmnext-to-help-icici-group-revamp-consumer-strategy-113091600230_1.html largest provider of CRM in financial services globally https://www.realwire.com/releases/CRMNEXTs-CRM-Banking-Edition-Tops-the-IBS-Sales-League-Table-2017 largest Digital-CRM implementation in banking in Asia at HDFC Bank with 45,000+ users, across 3,000+ branches and 1,500+ cities and towns https://theceo.in/2015/11/crmnext-runs-largest-digital-crm-implementations-asian-banking-sector/ I have discussed the issue with the admin who deleted the page but we did not seem to come to any conclusion /info/en/?search=User_talk:RoySmith#Deletion_review_for_CRMNEXT NiK ( talk) 12:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
* Point taken, but the facts published on Economic times and Business standard give credibility to the fact that CRMNEXT is India's first cloud based CRM and has the largest user base per client (or implementation) that is an achievement in itself for a CRM product. In my opinion the number of users does matter and that is how this organization is able to disrupt the market of established players like Oracle, Microsoft and Sales-force NiK ( talk) 10:00, 27 September 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 closed as "delete" despite there not being consensus to delete, in my opinion. I see this as a discussion to decide whether it is better to have ⛹️ target basketball or ball game, and the majority of discussion was in line with that. There were a few delete !votes, but one of them was patently ridiculous (no, the emoji isn't a yo-yo or a severed head) and another was a boilerplate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, a third delete !vote was a bit stronger (although I disagree that it's ambiguous), and the closer used the language of that !vote in their closing rationale. However, the vast majority of discussion does not lend support to this conclusion. For example, I was supportive of a retarget to either basketball or ball game, but I am not supportive of deletion. I feel this should be relisted so I can get clarification from those who participated in the discussion to see whether or not they support deletion (because for the majority of !votes, this was unclear). -- Tavix ( talk) 19:49, 22 September 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. |
Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP. 79.183.203.120 ( talk) 20:46, 20 September 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 think this passes GNG. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 15:37, 18 September 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. |
Please forgive me, this is a long and frustrating read because this article goes deeper than a single AfD decision. The articles for various cricketers were sent to PROD - those belonging to A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando and N. Kumara, back in March 2010, in spite of each of the cricketers meeting long-established notability guidelines. I re-added these four months ago The article belonging to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was sent to AfD - nearly five years later, albeit by a different user. I reinstated this article along with the other four, following discussion here. Naturally, this cricketer passes these long-held notability guidelines, similar to every other team sporting guideline, that a single appearance in a major competition is enough to establish notability. (Statistics here). There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, those of cricket players with a single major cricketing appearance, and every single one has been allowed to expand and thrive as an individual article - similar to single-appearance biographies in almost every team sport. Hence the reason for his addition. I concede that the closing admin here had a difficult decision to make considering the views put forward on the AfD page - however I do not consider the deletion rationales to be watertight. All the original deletion rationale claims is "Non-notable BLP". Which is scant - and unqualified - justification for sending an article which clearly meets long-accepted guidelines - to which we have held ever since the establishment of Wikiproject Cricket, as has every other competitive team sport - to AfD, especially since the rationale quotes no policy. Nor would it presumably be given adequate weight as a deletion rationale by a casting !voter by a closing admin, as the vote would quote no single guideline. The discussion included the point that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I thereby considered, perhaps the reason the article was being sent for deletion was purely the pluralization of the word "source"! Perhaps if we had included a link to a second source, this would have satisfied the "single source" deletion rationale. Along followed a debate on the AfD page in which the long-established guideline of WP:CRIN - which has never done us harm up until now - was quoted - that the article "technically met cricket biography notability guidelines", but that these were "only guidelines" (two quotes from the same user). Anyhow, following much discussion, which included delete votes put forward by an IP address, as well as an account which we have been unable to trace, the article was deleted. While fearing this article would be speedily deleted under CSD G4, I reinstated this (link to the Undelete logs) in May 2017, based on a discussion which took place here, alongside the four previously PROD-ded articles. While not deleted there and then, the article was speedily deleted four months later (is that a contradiction in terms?) under exactly the CSD criterion I feared. My main point is that most of the deletion !votes - as well as the rationale of the closing admin - in the 2015 deletion debate - based primarily on the fact that "we do not have basic details like date of birth", quoted three times by the IP address, are weak or invalid. In conclusion, I feel this article should be reinstated, based on weak, and invalid, deletion rationales, the fact that the article categorically meets inclusion criteria, and the fact that I believe there was no clear consensus in the AfD discussion. This article deletion has proven a net negative to our project, where we now fear that every article which meets the same criteria may suffer the same fate. Bobo . 10:10, 17 September 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'll revisit this and do necessary citations of the website Herrera enrico24 ( talk) 08:59, 7 September 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 thought you told me not to repost anymore and this isn't Blue's Clues Wikia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymiskulin ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 September 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. |
He debuted with Wanna One , placed number 1 in survival show "Produce 101". He is very popular in both Korea and international, among various age groups with many activities and variety shows. He is also Top List Of Most Buzzworthy TV Appearances. Chilli pepper ( talk) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@@ Mr.Guye: : He was placed number 1 in Produce 101- the most popular Korean survival show that was air in Japan (Mnet), Asia and Pacific (Tvn) , Vietnam [1] [2] [3] -After his debut with Wanna one August 7, 2017 ; he paticipated in many group activities ( KCON in LA,USA and upcoming KCON in Sydney,AUS) [4]; debut concert (2017); Wanna One Go ( group reality show ) [5] , variety shows (Happy Together , Saturday Night live, Immortal Song,Oppa Thinking ...) and Fanmeeting in Singapore, Thailand, Hongkong, Taiwan. -Also ,he has many individual activities such star guest at KBS "Superman is back" [6] ;KBS "Hello Counselor" [7] ; JTBC "Lets eat dinner together"Ep.44 [8] ;himself as a main cast MBC’s “It’s Dangerous Beyond the Blankets” show [9] , he also took first place for "the most buzzworthy TV appearances" the non-drama category [10] [11] -He also Graces Cover Of Current Events Magazine Due To Huge Popularity : the cover of "Weekly Chosun" [12] -He's the First Male Celeb To Grace The Cover Of Instyle In 14 Years will be issued in Octother [13] Chilli pepper ( talk) 05:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC) -Hello all I am the one who created the page first on 16 September 2017 but I was advised to create a draft first and submit it later when there's already more materials on the subject. In the time being I would redirect the page to Wanna One page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Gin ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC) }} @ Moon Gin: this page was created first back in June I think . Chilli pepper ( talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Chilli pepper: I see. I want to make this page into an independent page but Iw ant to wait until it's ready. I'm currently keeping a draft for it.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It is regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Deyo. WP:CONSENSUS is not a !vote count. There were two keep !votes & one of them was WP:ILIKEIT. Second keep !voter provided few sources which mention the subject in passing, along with giving a link of an album's promo. None of them even remotely proves the subject's notability. In fact, it was wrongly relisted for the second time, as there was consensus to redirect it to Sonicflood after the first relisting. And then it was wrongly closed. - NitinMlk ( talk) 22:54, 15 September 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. |
Non-admin closure (with a speedy keep result) by an editor whom had rendered an opinion on the subject Afd. Additionally, the closer User:Mrgrockz ( talk) is the creator of the article in question. This instance is a clear case of Wikipedia:BADNAC. SamHolt6 ( talk) 18:26, 15 September 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. |
Administrator RHaworth has performed a speedy deletion of the article MSQRD according by G11 criteria. I consider this decision as a mistaken one, as the article was written in neutral style and its deletion could be executed only according to WP:AFD procedure, together with detailed argumentation and discussion. ( "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion"). I have offered the administrator to restore the article and proceed with WP:AFD, but he told me to leave the inquiry here. Pessimist ( talk) 12:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Krukau ( talk) 18:54, 14 September 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 am requesting that the discussion be reopened based on new information and circumstances since the CfD discussion was recently closed on 6 September. The closing admin
suggested DRV
Consensus can change, but all known arguments should be made available and parties who have since expressed interest should have their input heard (especially when a significant number were not aware that the CfD was nominated). — Bagumba ( talk) 06:33, 10 September 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 page can be restored using newly available sources, I want to recreate it, so please get back what was written before. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:36, 8 September 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. |
Independent news sources other than Gaon itself have been added, which verify the results of the charts and other claims made. As such, the page is no longer a simple mirror of Gaon's chart pages, because it provides multiple viewpoints showcasing the facts about which songs were the top hits of the week. Satou4 ( talk) 18:49, 8 September 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 problem with a redirect is that List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions says "These are notable conventions that have at one time existed, but have either gone on hiatus for more than one year, were merged into other conventions, or have finished operating entirely." If AfD concluded that the Manifest convention is not notable, then it will no longer meet the List of anime conventions inclusion criteria. That means editors can delete Manifest from List of anime conventions and then delete the Manifest redirect because Manifest is no longer mentioned in the list. That is why Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 3#Manifest (convention) has a high likelihood of succeeding in deleting the redirect. Cunard ( talk) 18:09, 3 September 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. | ||||
157 pages (articles and article talk pages) were speedy deleted with the rationale "G5,11,TOU". These pages included Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork, which had passed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightNetwork. The pages were speedy deleted after creator Jeremy112233 ( talk · contribs) was blocked 13 September 2016 after investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. The rationale for speedy deletion under WP:G5 is that Jeremy112233 likely had previous blocked accounts. The deleting admin said he may have had previous blocked accounts because of a comment he made in 2012 ("I've been away from Wikipedia for a while"). But that is unverified and unknown. No clear link has been provided between Jeremy112233 and a prior blocked account. Therefore, WP:G5, which says:does not apply. The terms of use's "paid contributions without disclosure section" was added 16 June 2014. Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014 so there is no terms of use violation. The speedy deleting admin deleted 157 pages. He restored White House Community Leaders Briefing Series with the edit summary "Was okay." I am posting all the deleted articles here for review by the community since it is likely that more are okay. Some of the topics like Ball and Chain (restaurant) are clearly notable and did not meet WP:G11. As Carrite ( talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant):It does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this content. Here are all the deleted articles and talk pages: Cunard ( talk) 02:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Further details Our undisclosed paid promotional editor "voted" in both the AFDs [33] [34] There SPI is here. It contains 30 blocked accounts. As mentioned the Jeremy112233 was not new when it started. They very likely have prior blocked accounts seeing that they are using an army of socks. We have accounts prior to their creation that have the same editing pattern and are blocked. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. In my mind the distinction in making this G5 is the scale of the socking and the extreme likelihood given all the behavioral evidence that we have a blocked master that is not named in the SPI. I'd not support this for a one account TOU violator or even a 5 account violator. The 30 accounts though all but guarantees that if we had the technical ability, we'd be able to connect this to a blocked master before these articles were created. FWIW, assuming that this DRV goes as it is trending now, I think a discussion at VPP could be had about updating G5 to clarify for these type of situations without going to the extent of the proposed G14.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:26, 10 September 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 believe the subject qualifies as notable. Deleting admin suggested I bring the matter here. Note that I am not asking for the article to be restored to the version in which it was deleted but rather to the earlier version mentioned in the deletion discussion. I feel the deletion discussion did not adequately consider that version, which I believe is appropriately neutral. Subject continues to be the topic of ongoing news coverage; see deleting admin's page for our discussion of the BLP1E issue. If necessary, I would be willing to recreate the article from scratch, but undeletion of the previous version seems more appropriate. KDS4444 ( talk) 23:00, 1 September 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. |
Incorrectly deleted as G12 COPYVIO. Article was paraphrased from Russian sources - not a copy. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:51, 29 September 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. |
Page deleted without real debate DanielFarad ( talk) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The page was deleted after a 2 against 1 vote debate over notability and I believe the people involved were not familiar with the video production field. The guy is a well established video director and is recognized worldwide, having worked with the biggest bands and artists. Please find here a list of references about Awards and nominations, interviews and news: Awards and Nominations Skrillex and Wiwek - Killa ft. Elliphant (Still In The Cage)
Zedd - Clarity
Deftones - You've Seen the Butcher
The New cities - Dead End, Countdown
Imagine Dragons - I bet my life Interviews
In the News
References
References
DanielFarad ( talk) 12:48, 30 September 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. |
Clearly the arguemtns in favor of deletion were grounded in policy. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk 06:27, 28 September 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. |
Significant new information and continued coverage support subject has far surpassed WP:BLP1E issues. See User:Paulmcdonald/Holly Neher for draft copy. Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
All of these articles discuss the individual in more detail and include coverage of subsequent events.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:07, 27 September 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 am new to the process of Wikipedia editing and deletion reviews. I'll do my best to make the case correctly. Recommending the reinclusion of italki (the language education service) from deletion, using this page as content User:Kshanghai/Italki. Previous versions of the page were not well referenced WP:RS, and did not meet the standards for objectivity WP:NPOV, notability WP:GNG, and for being too close to corporate promotion WP:CORPSPAM. New page content tries to address this by: 1. Rewriting the previous text to be simpler, and more neutral. 2. Adding references for sources that are reputable, including major news organizations and industry blogs that cover technology or language education WP:RS. 3. Removed text that could be viewed as promotional. Using criteria of neutrality and notability, removing italki from Wikipedia seems inconsistent. It is arguably the largest company in this segment, and significantly smaller companies are included in Wikipedia. For disclosure of conflicts of interest, I am employed by the company. WP:AVOIDCOI Reference to the previous deletion discussion: Kshanghai ( talk) 07:51, 26 September 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 believe that I present significant new information since the article was deleted To establish notability of CRMNEXT I present the below arguments, First Indian Cloud based CRM solution http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/crmnext-launches-indias-first-cloud-bsaed-digital-crm-platform/articleshow/50866242.cms One of the largest CRM solutions with 40,000 http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/crmnext-to-help-icici-group-revamp-consumer-strategy-113091600230_1.html largest provider of CRM in financial services globally https://www.realwire.com/releases/CRMNEXTs-CRM-Banking-Edition-Tops-the-IBS-Sales-League-Table-2017 largest Digital-CRM implementation in banking in Asia at HDFC Bank with 45,000+ users, across 3,000+ branches and 1,500+ cities and towns https://theceo.in/2015/11/crmnext-runs-largest-digital-crm-implementations-asian-banking-sector/ I have discussed the issue with the admin who deleted the page but we did not seem to come to any conclusion /info/en/?search=User_talk:RoySmith#Deletion_review_for_CRMNEXT NiK ( talk) 12:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
* Point taken, but the facts published on Economic times and Business standard give credibility to the fact that CRMNEXT is India's first cloud based CRM and has the largest user base per client (or implementation) that is an achievement in itself for a CRM product. In my opinion the number of users does matter and that is how this organization is able to disrupt the market of established players like Oracle, Microsoft and Sales-force NiK ( talk) 10:00, 27 September 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 closed as "delete" despite there not being consensus to delete, in my opinion. I see this as a discussion to decide whether it is better to have ⛹️ target basketball or ball game, and the majority of discussion was in line with that. There were a few delete !votes, but one of them was patently ridiculous (no, the emoji isn't a yo-yo or a severed head) and another was a boilerplate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, a third delete !vote was a bit stronger (although I disagree that it's ambiguous), and the closer used the language of that !vote in their closing rationale. However, the vast majority of discussion does not lend support to this conclusion. For example, I was supportive of a retarget to either basketball or ball game, but I am not supportive of deletion. I feel this should be relisted so I can get clarification from those who participated in the discussion to see whether or not they support deletion (because for the majority of !votes, this was unclear). -- Tavix ( talk) 19:49, 22 September 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. |
Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP. 79.183.203.120 ( talk) 20:46, 20 September 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 think this passes GNG. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 15:37, 18 September 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. |
Please forgive me, this is a long and frustrating read because this article goes deeper than a single AfD decision. The articles for various cricketers were sent to PROD - those belonging to A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando and N. Kumara, back in March 2010, in spite of each of the cricketers meeting long-established notability guidelines. I re-added these four months ago The article belonging to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was sent to AfD - nearly five years later, albeit by a different user. I reinstated this article along with the other four, following discussion here. Naturally, this cricketer passes these long-held notability guidelines, similar to every other team sporting guideline, that a single appearance in a major competition is enough to establish notability. (Statistics here). There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, those of cricket players with a single major cricketing appearance, and every single one has been allowed to expand and thrive as an individual article - similar to single-appearance biographies in almost every team sport. Hence the reason for his addition. I concede that the closing admin here had a difficult decision to make considering the views put forward on the AfD page - however I do not consider the deletion rationales to be watertight. All the original deletion rationale claims is "Non-notable BLP". Which is scant - and unqualified - justification for sending an article which clearly meets long-accepted guidelines - to which we have held ever since the establishment of Wikiproject Cricket, as has every other competitive team sport - to AfD, especially since the rationale quotes no policy. Nor would it presumably be given adequate weight as a deletion rationale by a casting !voter by a closing admin, as the vote would quote no single guideline. The discussion included the point that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I thereby considered, perhaps the reason the article was being sent for deletion was purely the pluralization of the word "source"! Perhaps if we had included a link to a second source, this would have satisfied the "single source" deletion rationale. Along followed a debate on the AfD page in which the long-established guideline of WP:CRIN - which has never done us harm up until now - was quoted - that the article "technically met cricket biography notability guidelines", but that these were "only guidelines" (two quotes from the same user). Anyhow, following much discussion, which included delete votes put forward by an IP address, as well as an account which we have been unable to trace, the article was deleted. While fearing this article would be speedily deleted under CSD G4, I reinstated this (link to the Undelete logs) in May 2017, based on a discussion which took place here, alongside the four previously PROD-ded articles. While not deleted there and then, the article was speedily deleted four months later (is that a contradiction in terms?) under exactly the CSD criterion I feared. My main point is that most of the deletion !votes - as well as the rationale of the closing admin - in the 2015 deletion debate - based primarily on the fact that "we do not have basic details like date of birth", quoted three times by the IP address, are weak or invalid. In conclusion, I feel this article should be reinstated, based on weak, and invalid, deletion rationales, the fact that the article categorically meets inclusion criteria, and the fact that I believe there was no clear consensus in the AfD discussion. This article deletion has proven a net negative to our project, where we now fear that every article which meets the same criteria may suffer the same fate. Bobo . 10:10, 17 September 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'll revisit this and do necessary citations of the website Herrera enrico24 ( talk) 08:59, 7 September 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 thought you told me not to repost anymore and this isn't Blue's Clues Wikia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymiskulin ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 September 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. |
He debuted with Wanna One , placed number 1 in survival show "Produce 101". He is very popular in both Korea and international, among various age groups with many activities and variety shows. He is also Top List Of Most Buzzworthy TV Appearances. Chilli pepper ( talk) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@@ Mr.Guye: : He was placed number 1 in Produce 101- the most popular Korean survival show that was air in Japan (Mnet), Asia and Pacific (Tvn) , Vietnam [1] [2] [3] -After his debut with Wanna one August 7, 2017 ; he paticipated in many group activities ( KCON in LA,USA and upcoming KCON in Sydney,AUS) [4]; debut concert (2017); Wanna One Go ( group reality show ) [5] , variety shows (Happy Together , Saturday Night live, Immortal Song,Oppa Thinking ...) and Fanmeeting in Singapore, Thailand, Hongkong, Taiwan. -Also ,he has many individual activities such star guest at KBS "Superman is back" [6] ;KBS "Hello Counselor" [7] ; JTBC "Lets eat dinner together"Ep.44 [8] ;himself as a main cast MBC’s “It’s Dangerous Beyond the Blankets” show [9] , he also took first place for "the most buzzworthy TV appearances" the non-drama category [10] [11] -He also Graces Cover Of Current Events Magazine Due To Huge Popularity : the cover of "Weekly Chosun" [12] -He's the First Male Celeb To Grace The Cover Of Instyle In 14 Years will be issued in Octother [13] Chilli pepper ( talk) 05:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC) -Hello all I am the one who created the page first on 16 September 2017 but I was advised to create a draft first and submit it later when there's already more materials on the subject. In the time being I would redirect the page to Wanna One page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Gin ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC) }} @ Moon Gin: this page was created first back in June I think . Chilli pepper ( talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Chilli pepper: I see. I want to make this page into an independent page but Iw ant to wait until it's ready. I'm currently keeping a draft for it.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It is regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Deyo. WP:CONSENSUS is not a !vote count. There were two keep !votes & one of them was WP:ILIKEIT. Second keep !voter provided few sources which mention the subject in passing, along with giving a link of an album's promo. None of them even remotely proves the subject's notability. In fact, it was wrongly relisted for the second time, as there was consensus to redirect it to Sonicflood after the first relisting. And then it was wrongly closed. - NitinMlk ( talk) 22:54, 15 September 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. |
Non-admin closure (with a speedy keep result) by an editor whom had rendered an opinion on the subject Afd. Additionally, the closer User:Mrgrockz ( talk) is the creator of the article in question. This instance is a clear case of Wikipedia:BADNAC. SamHolt6 ( talk) 18:26, 15 September 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. |
Administrator RHaworth has performed a speedy deletion of the article MSQRD according by G11 criteria. I consider this decision as a mistaken one, as the article was written in neutral style and its deletion could be executed only according to WP:AFD procedure, together with detailed argumentation and discussion. ( "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion"). I have offered the administrator to restore the article and proceed with WP:AFD, but he told me to leave the inquiry here. Pessimist ( talk) 12:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Krukau ( talk) 18:54, 14 September 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 am requesting that the discussion be reopened based on new information and circumstances since the CfD discussion was recently closed on 6 September. The closing admin
suggested DRV
Consensus can change, but all known arguments should be made available and parties who have since expressed interest should have their input heard (especially when a significant number were not aware that the CfD was nominated). — Bagumba ( talk) 06:33, 10 September 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 page can be restored using newly available sources, I want to recreate it, so please get back what was written before. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:36, 8 September 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. |
Independent news sources other than Gaon itself have been added, which verify the results of the charts and other claims made. As such, the page is no longer a simple mirror of Gaon's chart pages, because it provides multiple viewpoints showcasing the facts about which songs were the top hits of the week. Satou4 ( talk) 18:49, 8 September 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 problem with a redirect is that List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions says "These are notable conventions that have at one time existed, but have either gone on hiatus for more than one year, were merged into other conventions, or have finished operating entirely." If AfD concluded that the Manifest convention is not notable, then it will no longer meet the List of anime conventions inclusion criteria. That means editors can delete Manifest from List of anime conventions and then delete the Manifest redirect because Manifest is no longer mentioned in the list. That is why Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 3#Manifest (convention) has a high likelihood of succeeding in deleting the redirect. Cunard ( talk) 18:09, 3 September 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. | ||||
157 pages (articles and article talk pages) were speedy deleted with the rationale "G5,11,TOU". These pages included Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork, which had passed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightNetwork. The pages were speedy deleted after creator Jeremy112233 ( talk · contribs) was blocked 13 September 2016 after investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. The rationale for speedy deletion under WP:G5 is that Jeremy112233 likely had previous blocked accounts. The deleting admin said he may have had previous blocked accounts because of a comment he made in 2012 ("I've been away from Wikipedia for a while"). But that is unverified and unknown. No clear link has been provided between Jeremy112233 and a prior blocked account. Therefore, WP:G5, which says:does not apply. The terms of use's "paid contributions without disclosure section" was added 16 June 2014. Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014 so there is no terms of use violation. The speedy deleting admin deleted 157 pages. He restored White House Community Leaders Briefing Series with the edit summary "Was okay." I am posting all the deleted articles here for review by the community since it is likely that more are okay. Some of the topics like Ball and Chain (restaurant) are clearly notable and did not meet WP:G11. As Carrite ( talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant):It does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this content. Here are all the deleted articles and talk pages: Cunard ( talk) 02:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Further details Our undisclosed paid promotional editor "voted" in both the AFDs [33] [34] There SPI is here. It contains 30 blocked accounts. As mentioned the Jeremy112233 was not new when it started. They very likely have prior blocked accounts seeing that they are using an army of socks. We have accounts prior to their creation that have the same editing pattern and are blocked. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. In my mind the distinction in making this G5 is the scale of the socking and the extreme likelihood given all the behavioral evidence that we have a blocked master that is not named in the SPI. I'd not support this for a one account TOU violator or even a 5 account violator. The 30 accounts though all but guarantees that if we had the technical ability, we'd be able to connect this to a blocked master before these articles were created. FWIW, assuming that this DRV goes as it is trending now, I think a discussion at VPP could be had about updating G5 to clarify for these type of situations without going to the extent of the proposed G14.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:26, 10 September 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 believe the subject qualifies as notable. Deleting admin suggested I bring the matter here. Note that I am not asking for the article to be restored to the version in which it was deleted but rather to the earlier version mentioned in the deletion discussion. I feel the deletion discussion did not adequately consider that version, which I believe is appropriately neutral. Subject continues to be the topic of ongoing news coverage; see deleting admin's page for our discussion of the BLP1E issue. If necessary, I would be willing to recreate the article from scratch, but undeletion of the previous version seems more appropriate. KDS4444 ( talk) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |