|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Firstly, I've found some reliable sources for this page (e.g., List of bus routes and stops in Shenzhen (July 2018)). Moreover, I still regard it unreasonable and totally UNFAIR to DELETE this page while other similar pages (e.g., List of bus routes in Guangzhou, List of bus routes in Hong Kong, etc) were KEPT. Thus I strongly demand for a recovery of this page ASAP, or send the source of this page to my e-mail at least. Many thanks! Richardcai ( talk) 13:11, 29 August 2018 (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. |
(After a lot of confusion, I think this is the right place to request restoration of the page per
WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. If
WP:REFUND is the right place, forgive me because the distinction between the criteria for each is bloody difficult to work out.) I don't contest the previous deletion result, but I do think Challenor now warrants an article. Since the last deletion discussion, a wealth of new sources about her have been published, some related to her father being convicted of rape (
[1]). I can't see the sources in the original article, but those created since September 2017 include
this full length Times article,
brief coverage in HuffPost, a
Guardian profile, a misgendering incident involving the BBC (
[2]/
[3]), an open letter started by her (
Mirror article) and news that she was standing for deputy leadership (
[4]) and then pulled out due to her father's conviction (
[5]). —
Bilorv
(c)
(talk) 23:52, 26 August 2018 (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. |
No consensus reached after only one relist, need to relist for better consensus. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:39, 24 August 2018 (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. |
Draft deleted as "advertising". Admin has refused to provide any explanation. Not only should it be restored to draftspace, but it belongs in mainspace. The New York Times article is very substantial coverage. I know Wikipedia doesn't like Blacks let alone Republicans but this censorship is disgusting and cannot be allowed to stand. I understand that articles on candidates are disfavored but General Notability is clearly met and this is a major national race and this individual has already won the major party primary and received very substantial coverage. We have several articles on Democrat House candidates (this man is a Senate candidate which is a much more powerful office). Being the wrong party and skin color should not be a limitation. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Undelete to move to User: Zimmermann901/Codename: Sailor V - The Game (not restore to entire article) for further rework and cleanup. I am not asking for restore the page, but I am beg for move to my private area (see above). Reason: Link to reliable source. I'll found other links after undeleting to destination point I set above. Zimmermann901 ( talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (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 above deletion discussion, I voted keep and provided multiple published sources to satisfy the notability guideline. The subsequent comments don't argue notability, but instead the quality of the current article (with one user suggesting it be merged into Tezuka's article). However, AFD is not cleanup! It is only meant to discuss notability and this article was clearly notable. That's why I'm really perplexed about how it was allowed to be pushed into incubation. No specific user said they would work on the article in draftspace, and lo and behold Draft:Story manga was deleted six months later for being abandoned. Why is this allowed to happen? A clearly notable article, albeit in a bad state, was pushed off into a space where no one would obviously edit it, which is tantamount to deletion anyway. Now we not only have no placeholder article readers can use and improve in the meantime, but no one will know it ever existed because it was just pushed under the rug and silently deleted, despite many references proving its notability. Opencooper ( talk) 05:12, 16 August 2018 (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. |
Much like Chiyo Miyako below, this was closed as delete despite the consensus being for keep, or at least no consensus. She is currently the world's oldest person, but there seems to be a group of editors that wants to delete most supercentenarian articles. The AfD's closer, User:Spartaz, pretty much gave an WP:IDONTLIKEIT response and said the arguments for meeting GNG had been refuted time and time again by delete voters. This is patently false if we examine the sources provided. While some were routine, not all were. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 15:17, 14 August 2018 (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. |
See Draft:Umar Khalid. WP:1E no longer applies because the subject has been involved in other notable events, including a recent assassination attempt, and received continuing coverage in secondary news sources. Catrìona ( talk) 21:02, 13 August 2018 (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 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's at least three problems with this close:
References
References
| ||
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 inappropriately closed as "speedy keep" by an involved non-admin ( Wumbolo) after 53 minutes. (See Talk:Sarah Jeong for involvement.) The rationale for the close was that "this is a BS nomination" without addressing the nominator's original WP:BLP1E argument. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites mostly passing mentions and non- independent sources as references. The discussion should have been allowed to run for the full 7 days. — Newslinger talk 13:01, 6 August 2018 (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 reference(s) Vicmullar ( talk) 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Zambia Daily Mail, Zambian Eye, Tumfweko, Luskatimes are reliable sources in Zambia and they have been used by most if not all Zambian articles to mention a few. See these articles 1. Chef 187 2. T Low 3. Macky 2 4. Kan 2 5. Mampi 6. B Flow 7. Cleo Ice Queen 8. Petersen Zagaze 9. Ruff Kid Another thing is despite user Chabota Kanguya had a conflict of interest hence voting the page to be deleted despite having notable reference, see the pages he created and you shall find that he actually use the same paper. Otherwise the decision to delete the page was rushed hence there was no consensus. See these www.daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run written by one of the paid and senior editors of the paper. See also the new source https://zambianeye.com/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ written by the papers news desk. Also note that the artist Has had a single (s) on the country's national music chart and also he Has performed music for a work of media that is notable in Zambia ZNBC Born n Bred award's Cypher 2014 - 2015 (more like BET awards cyphers in the US) which aired on national television [7] this reference is from youtube not to contribute on notability but to pin point facts Vicmullar ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Richard Barkeep49 ansh talk Talk, By the way, I saw the hard copy newspaper of this some few days ago, am guessing they just published the story online, problem is that the pic and story is word by word the same with the Zambian Eye, I don't know what is what but this my be the RS we've been looking for(Still not sure who published the story and 1st). Please Check and analyse the source http://theglobeonline.news/entertainment/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ Vicmullar ( talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (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 meets all standards and was deleted when I made mistake editing and trying to expand his page which I thought would help not get it deleted. I would very much love an unbias review and reinstatement. I believe Wikipedia will benefit from having this information, not losing it. Thank you Ktthatme ( talk) 17:09, 5 August 2018 (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 suspect the contributors of the AfD weren't familiar with the RC helicopter world because the T-Rex line of products is surely the best known one, with parts available at any RC shop. There doesn't seem to be a lot of books about the RC manufacturers. Here are examples of references: [11] [12], three small German books by the same author: [13] [14] [15]. I'd like the article to be to userfied so I can try and add references. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (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 deletion review mentioned above, the determination was made to not restore the article due to a lack of sufficient sourcing which was independent of the LDS Church. I am again requesting a deletion review for this article in view of an entirely different reason. During the April 2018 General Conference, Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency led the Sustaining of Church Officers on Saturday Afternoon. Among the changes he presented were new members of the Presidency of the Seventy, who are assigned to assist the apostles in their ministries, and who have oversight of all current seventies in the Church. One of those presented for sustaining vote, whom Oaks noted would begin serving in that Presidency on August 1 of this year was Terence M. Vinson. Given that his new assignment as such puts him in a much higher profile (as members of that Presidency are generally among top considerations when a new apostle needs to be called), and given that other members of that Presidency, who were far less notable for both religious and secular reasons, have had articles maintained about them, I propose that the article about Terence M. Vinson be restored ASAP. If the consensus decides that should not occur, I will accept that decision. But given these new reasons for restoring the article, I hope it can be reinstated. Thank you for the privilege of your time and for your consideration of this matter. Jgstokes ( talk) 00:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
this article covering changes in Church leadership, including the two new members that started serving immediately, and the 2 others (in addition to Vinson) that are now serving. Vinson's call is significant to the Church (and by extension to the Saints in Australia) because he also happens to be the first Austrailian leader called to the Presidency of the Seventy.
|
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 consensus is clear so I'm happy to withdraw this. My concern was exclusively procedural – I would've !voted to delete this at RfD given the chance – but I suppose it isn't unreasonable to prioritise the obvious good reasons for deleting this over the procedural reasons for revisiting it. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:18, 3 August 2018 (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've found another sizeable quote about the organisation in the
Financial Times reproduced here:
User talk:Sandstein#Closed AfD, Britain for Europe, (the article already featured one FT quote). The same link also shows the discussion with the closing editor.
|
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 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 vandalized after refusal to pay for "improvements". Tsma73 ( talk) 01:02, 1 August 2018 (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. |
Firstly, I've found some reliable sources for this page (e.g., List of bus routes and stops in Shenzhen (July 2018)). Moreover, I still regard it unreasonable and totally UNFAIR to DELETE this page while other similar pages (e.g., List of bus routes in Guangzhou, List of bus routes in Hong Kong, etc) were KEPT. Thus I strongly demand for a recovery of this page ASAP, or send the source of this page to my e-mail at least. Many thanks! Richardcai ( talk) 13:11, 29 August 2018 (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. |
(After a lot of confusion, I think this is the right place to request restoration of the page per
WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. If
WP:REFUND is the right place, forgive me because the distinction between the criteria for each is bloody difficult to work out.) I don't contest the previous deletion result, but I do think Challenor now warrants an article. Since the last deletion discussion, a wealth of new sources about her have been published, some related to her father being convicted of rape (
[1]). I can't see the sources in the original article, but those created since September 2017 include
this full length Times article,
brief coverage in HuffPost, a
Guardian profile, a misgendering incident involving the BBC (
[2]/
[3]), an open letter started by her (
Mirror article) and news that she was standing for deputy leadership (
[4]) and then pulled out due to her father's conviction (
[5]). —
Bilorv
(c)
(talk) 23:52, 26 August 2018 (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. |
No consensus reached after only one relist, need to relist for better consensus. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:39, 24 August 2018 (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. |
Draft deleted as "advertising". Admin has refused to provide any explanation. Not only should it be restored to draftspace, but it belongs in mainspace. The New York Times article is very substantial coverage. I know Wikipedia doesn't like Blacks let alone Republicans but this censorship is disgusting and cannot be allowed to stand. I understand that articles on candidates are disfavored but General Notability is clearly met and this is a major national race and this individual has already won the major party primary and received very substantial coverage. We have several articles on Democrat House candidates (this man is a Senate candidate which is a much more powerful office). Being the wrong party and skin color should not be a limitation. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Undelete to move to User: Zimmermann901/Codename: Sailor V - The Game (not restore to entire article) for further rework and cleanup. I am not asking for restore the page, but I am beg for move to my private area (see above). Reason: Link to reliable source. I'll found other links after undeleting to destination point I set above. Zimmermann901 ( talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (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 above deletion discussion, I voted keep and provided multiple published sources to satisfy the notability guideline. The subsequent comments don't argue notability, but instead the quality of the current article (with one user suggesting it be merged into Tezuka's article). However, AFD is not cleanup! It is only meant to discuss notability and this article was clearly notable. That's why I'm really perplexed about how it was allowed to be pushed into incubation. No specific user said they would work on the article in draftspace, and lo and behold Draft:Story manga was deleted six months later for being abandoned. Why is this allowed to happen? A clearly notable article, albeit in a bad state, was pushed off into a space where no one would obviously edit it, which is tantamount to deletion anyway. Now we not only have no placeholder article readers can use and improve in the meantime, but no one will know it ever existed because it was just pushed under the rug and silently deleted, despite many references proving its notability. Opencooper ( talk) 05:12, 16 August 2018 (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. |
Much like Chiyo Miyako below, this was closed as delete despite the consensus being for keep, or at least no consensus. She is currently the world's oldest person, but there seems to be a group of editors that wants to delete most supercentenarian articles. The AfD's closer, User:Spartaz, pretty much gave an WP:IDONTLIKEIT response and said the arguments for meeting GNG had been refuted time and time again by delete voters. This is patently false if we examine the sources provided. While some were routine, not all were. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 15:17, 14 August 2018 (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. |
See Draft:Umar Khalid. WP:1E no longer applies because the subject has been involved in other notable events, including a recent assassination attempt, and received continuing coverage in secondary news sources. Catrìona ( talk) 21:02, 13 August 2018 (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 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's at least three problems with this close:
References
References
| ||
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 inappropriately closed as "speedy keep" by an involved non-admin ( Wumbolo) after 53 minutes. (See Talk:Sarah Jeong for involvement.) The rationale for the close was that "this is a BS nomination" without addressing the nominator's original WP:BLP1E argument. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites mostly passing mentions and non- independent sources as references. The discussion should have been allowed to run for the full 7 days. — Newslinger talk 13:01, 6 August 2018 (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 reference(s) Vicmullar ( talk) 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Zambia Daily Mail, Zambian Eye, Tumfweko, Luskatimes are reliable sources in Zambia and they have been used by most if not all Zambian articles to mention a few. See these articles 1. Chef 187 2. T Low 3. Macky 2 4. Kan 2 5. Mampi 6. B Flow 7. Cleo Ice Queen 8. Petersen Zagaze 9. Ruff Kid Another thing is despite user Chabota Kanguya had a conflict of interest hence voting the page to be deleted despite having notable reference, see the pages he created and you shall find that he actually use the same paper. Otherwise the decision to delete the page was rushed hence there was no consensus. See these www.daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run written by one of the paid and senior editors of the paper. See also the new source https://zambianeye.com/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ written by the papers news desk. Also note that the artist Has had a single (s) on the country's national music chart and also he Has performed music for a work of media that is notable in Zambia ZNBC Born n Bred award's Cypher 2014 - 2015 (more like BET awards cyphers in the US) which aired on national television [7] this reference is from youtube not to contribute on notability but to pin point facts Vicmullar ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Richard Barkeep49 ansh talk Talk, By the way, I saw the hard copy newspaper of this some few days ago, am guessing they just published the story online, problem is that the pic and story is word by word the same with the Zambian Eye, I don't know what is what but this my be the RS we've been looking for(Still not sure who published the story and 1st). Please Check and analyse the source http://theglobeonline.news/entertainment/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ Vicmullar ( talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (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 meets all standards and was deleted when I made mistake editing and trying to expand his page which I thought would help not get it deleted. I would very much love an unbias review and reinstatement. I believe Wikipedia will benefit from having this information, not losing it. Thank you Ktthatme ( talk) 17:09, 5 August 2018 (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 suspect the contributors of the AfD weren't familiar with the RC helicopter world because the T-Rex line of products is surely the best known one, with parts available at any RC shop. There doesn't seem to be a lot of books about the RC manufacturers. Here are examples of references: [11] [12], three small German books by the same author: [13] [14] [15]. I'd like the article to be to userfied so I can try and add references. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (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 deletion review mentioned above, the determination was made to not restore the article due to a lack of sufficient sourcing which was independent of the LDS Church. I am again requesting a deletion review for this article in view of an entirely different reason. During the April 2018 General Conference, Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency led the Sustaining of Church Officers on Saturday Afternoon. Among the changes he presented were new members of the Presidency of the Seventy, who are assigned to assist the apostles in their ministries, and who have oversight of all current seventies in the Church. One of those presented for sustaining vote, whom Oaks noted would begin serving in that Presidency on August 1 of this year was Terence M. Vinson. Given that his new assignment as such puts him in a much higher profile (as members of that Presidency are generally among top considerations when a new apostle needs to be called), and given that other members of that Presidency, who were far less notable for both religious and secular reasons, have had articles maintained about them, I propose that the article about Terence M. Vinson be restored ASAP. If the consensus decides that should not occur, I will accept that decision. But given these new reasons for restoring the article, I hope it can be reinstated. Thank you for the privilege of your time and for your consideration of this matter. Jgstokes ( talk) 00:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
this article covering changes in Church leadership, including the two new members that started serving immediately, and the 2 others (in addition to Vinson) that are now serving. Vinson's call is significant to the Church (and by extension to the Saints in Australia) because he also happens to be the first Austrailian leader called to the Presidency of the Seventy.
|
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 consensus is clear so I'm happy to withdraw this. My concern was exclusively procedural – I would've !voted to delete this at RfD given the chance – but I suppose it isn't unreasonable to prioritise the obvious good reasons for deleting this over the procedural reasons for revisiting it. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:18, 3 August 2018 (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've found another sizeable quote about the organisation in the
Financial Times reproduced here:
User talk:Sandstein#Closed AfD, Britain for Europe, (the article already featured one FT quote). The same link also shows the discussion with the closing editor.
|
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 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 vandalized after refusal to pay for "improvements". Tsma73 ( talk) 01:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |