|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Dear editors, would you please review the ThinkMarkets page, it was deleted due to lack of brand publicity. ThinkMarkets is a FCA regulated company and it has been fetaured on Forbes. 217.38.144.68 ( talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (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. |
A NAC for a discussion that was closed prematurely, in my opinion, whereby a relisting would have been a more functional course of action relative to the input the discussion has received. Requests from me to the closer ( Sheldybett) to consider reopening the discusion ( diff, diff) have been ignored. Another user ( 78.26) has also expressed concerns about the matter ( diff, diff, diff). I recommend for the discussion closure to be overturned and for the discussion to be relisted in hopes to obtain a consensus. North America 1000 08:06, 30 January 2019 (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. |
Hello all. I would like to rediscuss the deletion of the page for Louis Sola. He has recently been nominated to a federal government post, which I believe qualifies him for a page under WP:Politician. 2605:6000:EE46:2300:F84E:D2C0:57D2:74FD ( talk) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (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. |
Here's why I believe the page should be undeleted: Nemer (Portuguese wiki https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nemer ) has become one of the leading researchers on misinformation and election: article published in the Guardian, Quartz, El Pais, he was recognized as one of the most influential people in science and technology by Globo (number 1 news venue in Brazil). He is the author of Favela Digital- The other side of technology. I'd be happy to edit and update the information. Wikisharktank ( talk) 13:02, 28 January 2019 (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 far as I can tell, Charlotte Stokely's bio doesn't match the criteria for deletion, especially now that she's got AVN and X-Bix Girl-Girl Performer of the Year in the same year. If an AVN award isn't "significant" than what porn award is? It's the biggest award-granting body in the industry. There's also a possible lgbt-recogition issue here. Here's the talk with the original editor: Sorry, never done this before but I THINK you're the person who deleted porn actress Charlotte Stokely's page? Anyway I know "significant awards" is part of the criteria? She just won AVN Girl-Girl Performer of the Year tonight, and this year also won XBIZ Girl-Girl Performer of the Year and was a Penthouse Pet of the Year this year. Does that make her more eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 ( talk) 08:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Other recent awards for Charlotte Stokely: 2019 Adult Entertainment News Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 XRCO Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 NightMoves Girl-Girl Performer of the Year Fan Voting — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.77.32.133 (
talk) 08:12, 27 January 2019 (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 was originally deleted under A9, because at the time, neither of the artists involved with the relevant song had a Wikipedia article. A9 now no longer applies since Unlike Pluto has his own page as of 21 January. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2019 (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. |
Premature closure, and even as a speedy deletion, this redirect does not meet
WP:R3. The
duffel bag article lists "duffle bag" as an alternative name, and the addition of a definite article does not make this a clear-cut enough case for R3 speedy deletion. I consider there to be a reasonable chance of this surviving RfD. I've discussed this with the closing admin at
User talk:JzG#The dufflebag RfD closure. Also, if this were created as an article (regardless of notability) and subsequently redirected, this should not have been deleted under R3, because 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 was mentioned promotional material used which was not the case. Eehsani ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2019 (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 moved to draft space. Organization is a major company selling prominent products such as the Dream by Genie bra with over $1 billion in retail sales. WP:TOOSHORT states that Wikipedia has many stubs. I support keeping the article, or moving this to AFD for a more publicized discussion. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (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 feel that the page has been deleted in error by Randykitty as I contested the nomination on the talk page, but did not see any reaction. The Cardano (platform) was live most of 2018 and then deleted. I rewrote the article twice, but it was speedy deleted. I asked a lot of Wikipedia 'collegues' to help me create a good Wikipedia article and even got help from an admin. As you can see on the deleted talk page. FlippyFlink ( talk) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (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. |
Nazo Dharejo's story has been made into an acclaimed film My Pure Land and has received lots of media coverage. Last month JogiAsad requested the deleting admin Courcelles to restore the article, and HouseOfChange concurred and said they would improve the article after its restoration (see archived discussion), but Courcelles has been inactive recently and has not responded. Zanhe ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2019 (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. |
Closer closed AfD as "merge". In terms of justified !votes, I believe there were 6 Keeps and 4 Merges (6 & 5 total). There was no delete/redirect !vote, so I could see that the discussion should be closed, but I feel either a Keep or No-consensus, along with a suggestion of opening a merge discussion was the appropriate action - consensus didn't support a forced merge. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (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 I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12.Tanks Reza Amper ( talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (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. |
An admin stated their objected closure in
CfD (diff). Their statement is I cannot decide what to do next. So I post here to request other people comment. See also closer talk page Hhkohh ( talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Overturn/relist There was no clear consensus to delete. The closer was involved, the CSD rationale was over-stretched. An uninvolved admin should close this.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (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. |
Hello, I would like to see if i can get my wikipedia page active again - all the Information on there was completely correct, It was such a great source for information about myself over the past 26 of my career and what accolades i have been awarded. I hope you will reconsider the desision to delete my page, i do not have a web site as such and this was a great place for anyone to fin out information about myself if they wanted to. I hope my page use to have not bad click through from searches, some of my colleagues who have pages on here have told me they get a good amount of traffic and interest on their Wikipedia. thank you Ian Hixxy Irhhxy ( talk) 16:30, 11 January 2019 (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. |
Evaluation of consensus regarding the notability of this cryptid does not adequately consider the
WP:FRINGE guideline. Although most of the "Keep" !votes say that cryptozoologists and credulous early-20th-century accounts are reliable sources and can be used to establish notability, the guideline states that
Thincat ( talk) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Cam we stop talking about users their motives, intelligence or competence. It adds nothing to the debate, and makes no ones case stronger. Can any such sub threads please be hated now. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (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 was speedy deleted claiming WP:G4, because a different page "Suicide of Katelyn Davis" about the event was deleted at an earlier point. However, the new page "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" is different in both references and content from the old page, so it should be evaluated independently on its own merits. For example, the old article was criticized for starting out with a casual DailyMail reference (and had a bunch of YouTube references), while the new article starts with the WP:RS The Independent (and has no YouTube references). The new article also has a section about effects and aftermath that wasn't present in the old, which further establishes notability and further demonstrates this is an entirely new article and should be treated as such. The old article was basically given WP:TNT and we started over. Remember, when applying WP:G4, "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The new article came into being after a formal "Articles for Creation" process over three months ending in admin approval, which can be seen in the new article's logs. Personal note: I didn't create the new "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" article (and I don't know who did) although I did participate in improving the draft it once I noticed it was present in the AfC stream. Jauerback who speedy deleted this article has been contacted and suggested I make a DRV entry here. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There is now (finally) enough specific information so that an article is appropriate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 7 January 2019 (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. |
Player has now played in a fully professional game, as documented by a reliable source. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It contained some very useful information, and was being improved by adding links and the dates they were formed and the dates they were reorganized, and which ones were discontinued and such. RobThomas15 ( talk) 13:08, 6 January 2019 (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 believes the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Although the delete/keep ratio was 2:1, a rough consensus, not enough weight was given by the closer to the arguments on policy from the keep editors. Of the stated arguments the closer cited as being convincing, WP:LISTN was refuted in argument, including citing sources that discuss the defined membership of the list. In the other argument, the closer reworded the definition of the list to create a different basis for the decision than the actual definition of the list. Thank you for your consideration on this. Mark Ironie ( talk) 02:55, 2 January 2019 (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. |
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. |
Dear editors, would you please review the ThinkMarkets page, it was deleted due to lack of brand publicity. ThinkMarkets is a FCA regulated company and it has been fetaured on Forbes. 217.38.144.68 ( talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (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. |
A NAC for a discussion that was closed prematurely, in my opinion, whereby a relisting would have been a more functional course of action relative to the input the discussion has received. Requests from me to the closer ( Sheldybett) to consider reopening the discusion ( diff, diff) have been ignored. Another user ( 78.26) has also expressed concerns about the matter ( diff, diff, diff). I recommend for the discussion closure to be overturned and for the discussion to be relisted in hopes to obtain a consensus. North America 1000 08:06, 30 January 2019 (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. |
Hello all. I would like to rediscuss the deletion of the page for Louis Sola. He has recently been nominated to a federal government post, which I believe qualifies him for a page under WP:Politician. 2605:6000:EE46:2300:F84E:D2C0:57D2:74FD ( talk) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (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. |
Here's why I believe the page should be undeleted: Nemer (Portuguese wiki https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nemer ) has become one of the leading researchers on misinformation and election: article published in the Guardian, Quartz, El Pais, he was recognized as one of the most influential people in science and technology by Globo (number 1 news venue in Brazil). He is the author of Favela Digital- The other side of technology. I'd be happy to edit and update the information. Wikisharktank ( talk) 13:02, 28 January 2019 (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 far as I can tell, Charlotte Stokely's bio doesn't match the criteria for deletion, especially now that she's got AVN and X-Bix Girl-Girl Performer of the Year in the same year. If an AVN award isn't "significant" than what porn award is? It's the biggest award-granting body in the industry. There's also a possible lgbt-recogition issue here. Here's the talk with the original editor: Sorry, never done this before but I THINK you're the person who deleted porn actress Charlotte Stokely's page? Anyway I know "significant awards" is part of the criteria? She just won AVN Girl-Girl Performer of the Year tonight, and this year also won XBIZ Girl-Girl Performer of the Year and was a Penthouse Pet of the Year this year. Does that make her more eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 ( talk) 08:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Other recent awards for Charlotte Stokely: 2019 Adult Entertainment News Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 XRCO Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 NightMoves Girl-Girl Performer of the Year Fan Voting — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.77.32.133 (
talk) 08:12, 27 January 2019 (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 was originally deleted under A9, because at the time, neither of the artists involved with the relevant song had a Wikipedia article. A9 now no longer applies since Unlike Pluto has his own page as of 21 January. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2019 (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. |
Premature closure, and even as a speedy deletion, this redirect does not meet
WP:R3. The
duffel bag article lists "duffle bag" as an alternative name, and the addition of a definite article does not make this a clear-cut enough case for R3 speedy deletion. I consider there to be a reasonable chance of this surviving RfD. I've discussed this with the closing admin at
User talk:JzG#The dufflebag RfD closure. Also, if this were created as an article (regardless of notability) and subsequently redirected, this should not have been deleted under R3, because 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 was mentioned promotional material used which was not the case. Eehsani ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2019 (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 moved to draft space. Organization is a major company selling prominent products such as the Dream by Genie bra with over $1 billion in retail sales. WP:TOOSHORT states that Wikipedia has many stubs. I support keeping the article, or moving this to AFD for a more publicized discussion. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (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 feel that the page has been deleted in error by Randykitty as I contested the nomination on the talk page, but did not see any reaction. The Cardano (platform) was live most of 2018 and then deleted. I rewrote the article twice, but it was speedy deleted. I asked a lot of Wikipedia 'collegues' to help me create a good Wikipedia article and even got help from an admin. As you can see on the deleted talk page. FlippyFlink ( talk) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (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. |
Nazo Dharejo's story has been made into an acclaimed film My Pure Land and has received lots of media coverage. Last month JogiAsad requested the deleting admin Courcelles to restore the article, and HouseOfChange concurred and said they would improve the article after its restoration (see archived discussion), but Courcelles has been inactive recently and has not responded. Zanhe ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2019 (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. |
Closer closed AfD as "merge". In terms of justified !votes, I believe there were 6 Keeps and 4 Merges (6 & 5 total). There was no delete/redirect !vote, so I could see that the discussion should be closed, but I feel either a Keep or No-consensus, along with a suggestion of opening a merge discussion was the appropriate action - consensus didn't support a forced merge. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (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 I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12.Tanks Reza Amper ( talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (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. |
An admin stated their objected closure in
CfD (diff). Their statement is I cannot decide what to do next. So I post here to request other people comment. See also closer talk page Hhkohh ( talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Overturn/relist There was no clear consensus to delete. The closer was involved, the CSD rationale was over-stretched. An uninvolved admin should close this.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (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. |
Hello, I would like to see if i can get my wikipedia page active again - all the Information on there was completely correct, It was such a great source for information about myself over the past 26 of my career and what accolades i have been awarded. I hope you will reconsider the desision to delete my page, i do not have a web site as such and this was a great place for anyone to fin out information about myself if they wanted to. I hope my page use to have not bad click through from searches, some of my colleagues who have pages on here have told me they get a good amount of traffic and interest on their Wikipedia. thank you Ian Hixxy Irhhxy ( talk) 16:30, 11 January 2019 (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. |
Evaluation of consensus regarding the notability of this cryptid does not adequately consider the
WP:FRINGE guideline. Although most of the "Keep" !votes say that cryptozoologists and credulous early-20th-century accounts are reliable sources and can be used to establish notability, the guideline states that
Thincat ( talk) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Cam we stop talking about users their motives, intelligence or competence. It adds nothing to the debate, and makes no ones case stronger. Can any such sub threads please be hated now. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (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 was speedy deleted claiming WP:G4, because a different page "Suicide of Katelyn Davis" about the event was deleted at an earlier point. However, the new page "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" is different in both references and content from the old page, so it should be evaluated independently on its own merits. For example, the old article was criticized for starting out with a casual DailyMail reference (and had a bunch of YouTube references), while the new article starts with the WP:RS The Independent (and has no YouTube references). The new article also has a section about effects and aftermath that wasn't present in the old, which further establishes notability and further demonstrates this is an entirely new article and should be treated as such. The old article was basically given WP:TNT and we started over. Remember, when applying WP:G4, "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The new article came into being after a formal "Articles for Creation" process over three months ending in admin approval, which can be seen in the new article's logs. Personal note: I didn't create the new "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" article (and I don't know who did) although I did participate in improving the draft it once I noticed it was present in the AfC stream. Jauerback who speedy deleted this article has been contacted and suggested I make a DRV entry here. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There is now (finally) enough specific information so that an article is appropriate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 7 January 2019 (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. |
Player has now played in a fully professional game, as documented by a reliable source. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It contained some very useful information, and was being improved by adding links and the dates they were formed and the dates they were reorganized, and which ones were discontinued and such. RobThomas15 ( talk) 13:08, 6 January 2019 (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 believes the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Although the delete/keep ratio was 2:1, a rough consensus, not enough weight was given by the closer to the arguments on policy from the keep editors. Of the stated arguments the closer cited as being convincing, WP:LISTN was refuted in argument, including citing sources that discuss the defined membership of the list. In the other argument, the closer reworded the definition of the list to create a different basis for the decision than the actual definition of the list. Thank you for your consideration on this. Mark Ironie ( talk) 02:55, 2 January 2019 (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. |
References
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |