|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was speedily deleted because it was edited by a banned user. The article itself is already quite good and on an interesting topic and had sources. Fuelbottle ( talk) 23:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
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. | ||||||
From the closing admin's talk page:
Here are the sources I found about "managing by wire":
The AfD was closed at 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC) while I was looking for sources. I posted on the closing admin's talk page at 09:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC) to ask for a relist based on the sources I had found. The request for a relist was denied because it would have been a third relist. Had I posted my sources 21 minutes earlier, before the AfD closed, the AfD either would have been closed as "no consensus" or been relisted. Link to Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_by_wire The deleted article's content is neutrally written. Much of the deleted article's content can be sourced to the reliable sources I listed above. I therefore do not consider the deleted content to be so "pretty much worthless" that I am denied its restoration. Restore and relist.Cunard ( talk) 19:59, 25 December 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. |
Six years have passed since this article was deleted. The Portugal women's national futsal team is nowadays one of the best women's futsal national teams in the world (likely the second best in the world) and I think the team is, now, notable enough to have their own article, like other teams have. I didn't directly contact the admin who deleted it, because based on his contributions, he seems to be inactive or semi-active. Regards. SirEdimon ( talk) 23:52, 22 December 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 fail to see why this got closed without allowing it to run, I believe I have a legitimate case against this article. Previous AfD has multitude of floors in my opinion and that's why I want this article to go through AfD again. Govvy ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 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 clear consensus and little participation after a week. Suggest relisting discussion. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
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. |
Closed as redirect before consensus could be reached, redirection was only suggested by one editor, and the target doesn't seem appropriate IMO. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:12, 20 December 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. |
A9 I ask for the undeletion of the entry based on extended guidelines for /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs The song is performed by a large number of choirs in the United States, has numerous independent recording (as noted in Notable Performances section), mentions in the media, and is only gaining in popularity for this type of music. It is a modern day classical chorus music masterpiece that is a stand alone notable song regardless of composer and poet achievements. It happens that both the composer and the poet are very famous and accomplished in their respective spheres. I intend to write articles on both, one is already is draft (Thomas H. Troeger). The article was written following all Wiki standards, especially in regard to citations making sure that credible sources are cited. I addressed the issue with three different administrators, and as a new editor feel that Wikipedia is akin Kafka's Castle. MtUllaHistorian ( talk) 15:01, 20 December 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 have no love for this page or its subject, but during the course of an ANI thread I opened to combat autobiographical editing and sockpuppetry, Nyttend speedy deleted the page based on A7. This doesn't seem appropriate given that New Jersey Monthly published a pretty in-depth article about the guy, in addition to the various other sources that were cited. I'm not saying that deletion is totally unwarranted, just that there's enough evidence of notability that this warrants community input through an AfD. The deletion also interferes with the pending ANI, as non-admins can't review the article history to evaluate the conduct issues that were raised. R2 ( bleep) 18:58, 19 December 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 new logo was tagged as "no permission", let's use the old one first. B dash ( talk) 05:43, 18 December 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 AfD was closed as redirect [which I believe should have been Keep or No Consensus/ or relist]updated. And since then I have discussed the close with the closer at User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_administered_Kashmir.
|
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 have discussed this with the AfD closer User:Tone, see User_talk:Tone#Articles_for_deletion/Shafiqul_Islam_Masud_(2nd_nomination). I had the article open on my browser to consider, then realised the AfD had been closed. I don't think that the nom's claim of non-notability was done on the right criteria. This man's claim to notability is not in being an unelected politican, but in being a party leader imprisoned under the country's Special Power Act for 3 years. He was arrested with others, but as the source headlines in the article indicate, as party leader he was the only one named. The sources given in the first AfD, including the Wall Street Journal [50], and The Guardian [51] and the arguments there (including WP:POLOUTCOMES 'Political figures not elected to public office': "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success") resulted in a Keep, and the sources had not been included in the article. The nom for this 2nd AfD claimed that he was non-notable as an "unelected candidate", but in fact he has not stood for election until this year, when he is currently a candidate in an election to be held on 30 December 2018. (He was also arrested again this year [52], which is also not yet in the article.) While the article could have been improved, I believe that there are arguments and evidence not considered in this AfD, and I am rather suspicious of the nom's motives when the election is so close. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 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 had the approval of the admin who originally salted the article (David Gerard), but it was nonetheless speedily deleted for rule Db-G4 which the article did not break, as it was significantly different from both prior deletions. Dr-Bracket ( talk) 16:57, 14 December 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. |
As discussed briefly at Wikipedia talk:Babel#Category redirects and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More populated category redirects, this eleven year old deletion has created problems with the Wikipedia:Babel system as the categories are automatically populated across all Wikipedias by the Babel system. Unfortunately this results in category redirects being populated for years and rigid enforcement of the 2008 discussion when anyone tries to restore them as categories. Formally allowing recreation seems the best solution. Due to the length of time since the discussion I have not gone to the closing admin (who also hasn't edited in a few weeks). Timrollpickering ( Talk) 14:32, 13 December 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. |
Hi, the page for Imaginary Forces was speedily deleted and later protected as the content was lacking in notability and noted as being blatant advertising. I have another working draft where the statements are of a more neutral tone to avoid sounding like an advertisement for the mentioned company. For notability sources I have the following for review: 1. Interview with Michelle Dougherty of Imaginary Forces: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-10-28/whats-the-story-behind-the-nostalgic-80s-style-stranger-things-opening-titles/ 2. Article about Imaginary Forces and their work on Title Design: http://brief.promaxbda.org/index.php/article/the-power-of-humble-title-design 3. Interview with Karin Fong regarding Imaginary Forces: https://www.fastcompany.com/video/all-your-favorite-opening-credits-may-have-been-made-by-the-same-company/EDDrQVow 4. Animation World Network review of Imaginary Forces: https://www.awn.com/blog/imaginary-forces-17-years-later 5. Art of the Title: http://www.artofthetitle.com/studio/imaginary-forces/ If the page doesn't qualify as a full wikipedia page, would it be possible to re-create it as a stub? I am also reviewing the requirements for a stub article in advance. Superseniors11 ( talk) 19:25, 11 December 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. |
Can be kept with {{ Non-free 3D art}} B dash ( talk) 05:21, 10 December 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorin OS (2nd nomination) as well, also sorry if I double pinged) Now that the distro has been around for a while, there is much more than just distrowatch -- I have added several reviews, etc, to source the article. I started doing this to add it to List of Linux distributions after someone added it and it got reverted. If you look at this list, the length of this article is not unusual, the version history table is well sourced with release notes (coupled with more recent articles talking about it), etc. In my opinion, this article with the citations as is would fit notability requirements, even just with the 7 or so citations of third party articles (ignoring the official Zorin releases). It'd be helpful if we could see the article as it was when it was deleted to see exactly what citations they were talking about when it was deleted. Another thing to keep in mind is that Zorin OS was deleted back in '09 when it was in beta, and it's still around nearly 10 years later and of course has had time to gain notability. HarryKernow. Talk. 20:05, 10 December 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. |
WP:NOTE Hello I noticed the article related to Minihane was deleted based on WP:NOTE and am unsure as tp why he has been the number one sports radio talk show in Boston before being removed from the air and has received more then enough national coverage to meet the significant coverage criteria. It appears those that did put zero or very little thought into the decision. To the Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/11/15/entercom-made-right-call-with-kirk-minihane/mXcBuwoKxM3XmbAgOlgnVO/story.html To Boston.com: https://www.boston.com/sports/media/2018/09/21/kirk-minihane-weei-update-im-still-working-through-stuff To local TV appearances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BxuFc75uno 72.139.207.250 ( talk) 13:24, 9 December 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. | ||
From the closing admin's talk page:
I agree with RebeccaGreen that in the AfD there were strong policy-based arguments for retention that provide significant coverage in reliable sources such as:
Several of the "delete" arguments were very short and contained very little reasoning about why Bernice Madigan was not notable. It is untrue that "The delete side had better arguments". "Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way" is a valid personal opinion to have, but there was no consensus in the discussion to implement that approach for this case. There is clearly no consensus to redirect when (after disregarding the single-purpose account Garlicolive) all of the editors who supported retention provided policy-based arguments.Overturn to no consensus. Cunard ( talk) 12:08, 9 December 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 found out about this CSD G11 deletion per a Reddit thread. While I don't know how likely it is that this article meets the notability guidelines, I don't think it's unambiguous advertising or promotion either. The scope of G11 is very narrow: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." This article might have put too much emphasis on one brand (Bancor), but not to the extent that is necessary for a G11 deletion. (note: I'm basing my comment on the article copy that the author posted on Reddit – I never saw the page before it was deleted.) – IagoQnsi ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
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. |
has since gained notability and has been credited in multiple news outlets. Brandonhoilett ( talk) 14:33, 5 December 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 was already directed to use DRV by closing admin. Same closing Admin has salted his decision by preventing editing by non-admin. I have added even more sources, we will be at 30 once I am allowed to edit. I managed to squash first NOM with a strong Keep vote. How they managed to get the second NOM through without my notice, especially with my history on this article, leaves me questioning how it happened. At this point I will refrain from ad hominem about the nominator. When I first came to this article I thought this guy was enough of a public figure to deserve an article, as I said originally, to explain who this guy who talks so much, is. Considering he is one of the top 3 hosts on the largest online network, while many lesser figures on his network have their own articles, it also makes me wonder why his needs to be hidden--hidden through redirect and salted. Trackinfo ( talk) 06:18, 5 December 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. |
This was at least the 26th AfD of one of these US TV schedule lists over the past 13 years (full list below)
TVGuide 2013 "Inside the Scheduling Wars: Why TV Lineups Still Matter"
Even more links...
|
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 speedily deleted because it was edited by a banned user. The article itself is already quite good and on an interesting topic and had sources. Fuelbottle ( talk) 23:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
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. | ||||||
From the closing admin's talk page:
Here are the sources I found about "managing by wire":
The AfD was closed at 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC) while I was looking for sources. I posted on the closing admin's talk page at 09:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC) to ask for a relist based on the sources I had found. The request for a relist was denied because it would have been a third relist. Had I posted my sources 21 minutes earlier, before the AfD closed, the AfD either would have been closed as "no consensus" or been relisted. Link to Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_by_wire The deleted article's content is neutrally written. Much of the deleted article's content can be sourced to the reliable sources I listed above. I therefore do not consider the deleted content to be so "pretty much worthless" that I am denied its restoration. Restore and relist.Cunard ( talk) 19:59, 25 December 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. |
Six years have passed since this article was deleted. The Portugal women's national futsal team is nowadays one of the best women's futsal national teams in the world (likely the second best in the world) and I think the team is, now, notable enough to have their own article, like other teams have. I didn't directly contact the admin who deleted it, because based on his contributions, he seems to be inactive or semi-active. Regards. SirEdimon ( talk) 23:52, 22 December 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 fail to see why this got closed without allowing it to run, I believe I have a legitimate case against this article. Previous AfD has multitude of floors in my opinion and that's why I want this article to go through AfD again. Govvy ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 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 clear consensus and little participation after a week. Suggest relisting discussion. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
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. |
Closed as redirect before consensus could be reached, redirection was only suggested by one editor, and the target doesn't seem appropriate IMO. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:12, 20 December 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. |
A9 I ask for the undeletion of the entry based on extended guidelines for /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs The song is performed by a large number of choirs in the United States, has numerous independent recording (as noted in Notable Performances section), mentions in the media, and is only gaining in popularity for this type of music. It is a modern day classical chorus music masterpiece that is a stand alone notable song regardless of composer and poet achievements. It happens that both the composer and the poet are very famous and accomplished in their respective spheres. I intend to write articles on both, one is already is draft (Thomas H. Troeger). The article was written following all Wiki standards, especially in regard to citations making sure that credible sources are cited. I addressed the issue with three different administrators, and as a new editor feel that Wikipedia is akin Kafka's Castle. MtUllaHistorian ( talk) 15:01, 20 December 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 have no love for this page or its subject, but during the course of an ANI thread I opened to combat autobiographical editing and sockpuppetry, Nyttend speedy deleted the page based on A7. This doesn't seem appropriate given that New Jersey Monthly published a pretty in-depth article about the guy, in addition to the various other sources that were cited. I'm not saying that deletion is totally unwarranted, just that there's enough evidence of notability that this warrants community input through an AfD. The deletion also interferes with the pending ANI, as non-admins can't review the article history to evaluate the conduct issues that were raised. R2 ( bleep) 18:58, 19 December 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 new logo was tagged as "no permission", let's use the old one first. B dash ( talk) 05:43, 18 December 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 AfD was closed as redirect [which I believe should have been Keep or No Consensus/ or relist]updated. And since then I have discussed the close with the closer at User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_administered_Kashmir.
|
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 have discussed this with the AfD closer User:Tone, see User_talk:Tone#Articles_for_deletion/Shafiqul_Islam_Masud_(2nd_nomination). I had the article open on my browser to consider, then realised the AfD had been closed. I don't think that the nom's claim of non-notability was done on the right criteria. This man's claim to notability is not in being an unelected politican, but in being a party leader imprisoned under the country's Special Power Act for 3 years. He was arrested with others, but as the source headlines in the article indicate, as party leader he was the only one named. The sources given in the first AfD, including the Wall Street Journal [50], and The Guardian [51] and the arguments there (including WP:POLOUTCOMES 'Political figures not elected to public office': "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success") resulted in a Keep, and the sources had not been included in the article. The nom for this 2nd AfD claimed that he was non-notable as an "unelected candidate", but in fact he has not stood for election until this year, when he is currently a candidate in an election to be held on 30 December 2018. (He was also arrested again this year [52], which is also not yet in the article.) While the article could have been improved, I believe that there are arguments and evidence not considered in this AfD, and I am rather suspicious of the nom's motives when the election is so close. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 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 had the approval of the admin who originally salted the article (David Gerard), but it was nonetheless speedily deleted for rule Db-G4 which the article did not break, as it was significantly different from both prior deletions. Dr-Bracket ( talk) 16:57, 14 December 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. |
As discussed briefly at Wikipedia talk:Babel#Category redirects and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More populated category redirects, this eleven year old deletion has created problems with the Wikipedia:Babel system as the categories are automatically populated across all Wikipedias by the Babel system. Unfortunately this results in category redirects being populated for years and rigid enforcement of the 2008 discussion when anyone tries to restore them as categories. Formally allowing recreation seems the best solution. Due to the length of time since the discussion I have not gone to the closing admin (who also hasn't edited in a few weeks). Timrollpickering ( Talk) 14:32, 13 December 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. |
Hi, the page for Imaginary Forces was speedily deleted and later protected as the content was lacking in notability and noted as being blatant advertising. I have another working draft where the statements are of a more neutral tone to avoid sounding like an advertisement for the mentioned company. For notability sources I have the following for review: 1. Interview with Michelle Dougherty of Imaginary Forces: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-10-28/whats-the-story-behind-the-nostalgic-80s-style-stranger-things-opening-titles/ 2. Article about Imaginary Forces and their work on Title Design: http://brief.promaxbda.org/index.php/article/the-power-of-humble-title-design 3. Interview with Karin Fong regarding Imaginary Forces: https://www.fastcompany.com/video/all-your-favorite-opening-credits-may-have-been-made-by-the-same-company/EDDrQVow 4. Animation World Network review of Imaginary Forces: https://www.awn.com/blog/imaginary-forces-17-years-later 5. Art of the Title: http://www.artofthetitle.com/studio/imaginary-forces/ If the page doesn't qualify as a full wikipedia page, would it be possible to re-create it as a stub? I am also reviewing the requirements for a stub article in advance. Superseniors11 ( talk) 19:25, 11 December 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. |
Can be kept with {{ Non-free 3D art}} B dash ( talk) 05:21, 10 December 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorin OS (2nd nomination) as well, also sorry if I double pinged) Now that the distro has been around for a while, there is much more than just distrowatch -- I have added several reviews, etc, to source the article. I started doing this to add it to List of Linux distributions after someone added it and it got reverted. If you look at this list, the length of this article is not unusual, the version history table is well sourced with release notes (coupled with more recent articles talking about it), etc. In my opinion, this article with the citations as is would fit notability requirements, even just with the 7 or so citations of third party articles (ignoring the official Zorin releases). It'd be helpful if we could see the article as it was when it was deleted to see exactly what citations they were talking about when it was deleted. Another thing to keep in mind is that Zorin OS was deleted back in '09 when it was in beta, and it's still around nearly 10 years later and of course has had time to gain notability. HarryKernow. Talk. 20:05, 10 December 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. |
WP:NOTE Hello I noticed the article related to Minihane was deleted based on WP:NOTE and am unsure as tp why he has been the number one sports radio talk show in Boston before being removed from the air and has received more then enough national coverage to meet the significant coverage criteria. It appears those that did put zero or very little thought into the decision. To the Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/11/15/entercom-made-right-call-with-kirk-minihane/mXcBuwoKxM3XmbAgOlgnVO/story.html To Boston.com: https://www.boston.com/sports/media/2018/09/21/kirk-minihane-weei-update-im-still-working-through-stuff To local TV appearances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BxuFc75uno 72.139.207.250 ( talk) 13:24, 9 December 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. | ||
From the closing admin's talk page:
I agree with RebeccaGreen that in the AfD there were strong policy-based arguments for retention that provide significant coverage in reliable sources such as:
Several of the "delete" arguments were very short and contained very little reasoning about why Bernice Madigan was not notable. It is untrue that "The delete side had better arguments". "Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way" is a valid personal opinion to have, but there was no consensus in the discussion to implement that approach for this case. There is clearly no consensus to redirect when (after disregarding the single-purpose account Garlicolive) all of the editors who supported retention provided policy-based arguments.Overturn to no consensus. Cunard ( talk) 12:08, 9 December 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 found out about this CSD G11 deletion per a Reddit thread. While I don't know how likely it is that this article meets the notability guidelines, I don't think it's unambiguous advertising or promotion either. The scope of G11 is very narrow: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." This article might have put too much emphasis on one brand (Bancor), but not to the extent that is necessary for a G11 deletion. (note: I'm basing my comment on the article copy that the author posted on Reddit – I never saw the page before it was deleted.) – IagoQnsi ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
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. |
has since gained notability and has been credited in multiple news outlets. Brandonhoilett ( talk) 14:33, 5 December 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 was already directed to use DRV by closing admin. Same closing Admin has salted his decision by preventing editing by non-admin. I have added even more sources, we will be at 30 once I am allowed to edit. I managed to squash first NOM with a strong Keep vote. How they managed to get the second NOM through without my notice, especially with my history on this article, leaves me questioning how it happened. At this point I will refrain from ad hominem about the nominator. When I first came to this article I thought this guy was enough of a public figure to deserve an article, as I said originally, to explain who this guy who talks so much, is. Considering he is one of the top 3 hosts on the largest online network, while many lesser figures on his network have their own articles, it also makes me wonder why his needs to be hidden--hidden through redirect and salted. Trackinfo ( talk) 06:18, 5 December 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. |
This was at least the 26th AfD of one of these US TV schedule lists over the past 13 years (full list below)
TVGuide 2013 "Inside the Scheduling Wars: Why TV Lineups Still Matter"
Even more links...
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |