The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22 § 🥺, it looks like consensus around emoji redirects is that there shouldn't be any emoji without a redirect to somewhere, so re-creating this as a soft redirect to wikt:🔞 would be reasonable (or allowing discussion of a potentially better target). Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:38, 31 August 2021 (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. |
Closer incorrectly closed as Keep with a minimal number of participants evaluating sources using the "wrong" guideline when a "relist" was more appropriate. Closer also claims to have followed correct procedure but explanation at Talk page is flawed and contradictory but claims they're now being badgered (and oddly, claims they knew all along their close would be challenged??) HighKing ++ 10:37, 31 August 2021 (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. |
Letsgetgoing ( talk) 05:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC) The article was recently posted and was deleted. Could not contest it either, it was gone right away giving me no option to defend it. The person is a real person and is on several web sites and social media. A social media influencer. I created the article because I felt she should have a page given those reasons, no different than others here. I've done articles before, so this making a new one in general wasn't impossible. WhoAteMyButter deleted it, saying it didn't have any reliable sourcing (Which it did), and duggested nothing could be done by me until a "special someone comes and reviews your request. They can then decide to undelete it and restore it, or do nothing and not undelete it." I did ask others like User:Athaenara?Athaenara but it went nowhere, until Graeme Bartlett suggested WP:DRV. Please undelete the page. If anything needs to be changed or improve on, let me know and I will do it. But please give me a chance to do them or defend the page, instead of just getting rid of it. It's unfair, and I cannot do anything to make the changes if no one gives me that chance. Letsgetgoing ( talk) 05:16, 31 August 2021 (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. |
ECOTIC Association is one of the key players of the e-Waste management industry in Romania, implementing innovative projects focused on awareness raising and e-Waste Collection. As one of the most important players in the Romanian market it deserves an entry in the Romanian version of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The article has been revised various times and new third-party sources have been added as references. Should there be need for new revisions these can be made once the page is restored. Thank you! Liviu843 ( talk) 12:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Liviu843 |
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 original RFD for this article was only commented on (including the submitter) by a total of five editors and largely on the basis of supposedly being an "advertorially-toned page", which I dispute. This is a company which has largely taken the place of the old Silicon Graphics in making high-end commodity PC workstations in the post- RISC Unix workstation era ( 2000s decade). The company is admittedly small but not new; they were founded in 2002 and, like SGI before them, their main costumers are in movie special effects and high-end graphics applications. The original article was not perfect in the sense of good third-party sources but this can easily be rectified. Also, BOXX Technologies was the first company to actually ship 64-bit x86 PC systems in 2003; this is provable with third-party sources. Bumm13 ( talk) 23:37, 30 August 2021 (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 has been revealed that 1/2 of the people giving opinions and 2/3rds of the people arguing for deletion were the same person engaging in sock puppetry. See [1] and [2] [3]. Discounting this user's participation we are left with one comment in support of the article and one weak delete. While this AfD may have come to the correct conclusion it is also possible that it may have been unduly influenced by sock puppetry. I recommend given the circumstances that we relist the AfD. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:36, 26 August 2021 (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. |
Unusual NAC close by Aj Ajay Mehta 007 coming just hours after second relist by Qwaiiplayer. There were two keep !votes and two comments on sourcing. I suspect this discussion should have been left open. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (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. |
Minimally attended discussion of nom that was potentially flawed because it ignored that the cat was part of an established category structure ( Category:Italian propagandists, Category:German propagandists, many others). Subsequently cat has been recreated, speedy deleted, and is now populated as a WP:REDNOT. Suggest restoring, immediately relisting to allow broader discussion. Closing admin notified on talk page, here, has no opposition. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (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 last version can be found here. Primary issue of the debate was the use Daily Californian articles as some of the main sources to establish notability. The newspaper is independent of UC Berkeley. In addition Berkeley Student Cooperative which Lothlorien Hall is part of, is independent of the University. It’s only requirement is that residents are students, and just as many residents are Bay Area students from other colleges as from UC Berkeley. I think another reason for some editors' failing to recognize Lothlorien’s notability, was that the 1984 Killing of Roberta 'Bibi' Lee was only briefly mentioned. A former resident of Lothlorien was killed by her boyfriend a resident of the house. At first she was considered missing, and a search party was organized by Lothlorien (with the the search center known as Treehaven) over 2,000 people participated and approximately 3 million flyers were distributed along the west coast. This was covered nationally. Lothlorien retained a 60's new age/hippy/spiritual nature of the house's previous resident - One World Family Commune, which is embraced by a large portion of the residents. The killing has left an impact on this aspect and the ghost of killed ‘Bibi' is considered to haunt the place. This has been addressed in detail by Daily California article as well as in a published book (this link is to an article about it). Lothlorien is one of the book's primary subjects. It was not cited at the time. There is an article regarding Lothlorien, published in Communities, life in cooperative culture a quarterly journal. Editors have questioned the notability of the subject, even though there are approximately 1,500 communes currently established or in planning phase in the United States. The journal is carried in academic libraries of universities like Cornell, San Diego State and Universite de Montreal. Also, like two other BSC houses - Cloyne Court Hotel and Kingman Hall, the 2405 Prospect Ave. part of the co-op carries historical and architectural significance. Unlike the other two it has not been officially recognized as a historical landmark by Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, however it does consider it to be notable - it has a facebook entry regarding it and it's part of their Berkeley tour. The building was known as the Maxwell House because of its original resident George Hebard Maxwell the “Father of Reclamation" who was the co-author of National Reclamation Act that allowed the development projects like Hoover Dam, without such dams there would not be a western half of the United States. Thank you for looking over this. Rybkovich ( talk) 04:38, 26 August 2021 (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 know Titanfall 3 was real and not a hoax, but the admin deleted my draft page for being a hoax. 114.122.101.202 ( talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (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 two reliable sources evaluating the bias and reliability of Consortiumnews (cf. [4] & [5]), thus it is no doubt notable. RekishiEJ ( talk) 10:19, 23 August 2021 (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. | |||
Rationale as per the REFUND request here. These are two articles I AfD'd a long time ago. A recent RfC shows that the common understanding of the reliability of these sources wasn't correct. As a result, I think these should be undeleted, and subject to new AfDs if there is still appetite to delete them. Sources of these articles at the time of deletion:
| |||
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 wish to challenge this deletion as I believe the deletion discussion seemed to be all over the place with incorrect assumptions, but later settles on Notability however the story itself contradicts that very argument. The topic matter is regarding a terrorist attack in Istanbul, Turkey in 2009 which later on a few higher ranking political figures have stated that it was in fact done by Turkish secret police or some clandestine organization within the Turkish government. This indecent was heavily publicized by Turkish media at the time. The blame has been put on the PKK even till this day by the Turkish state and media, yet that does not seem to be the case. A single person died due to serve burns, specifically from a thrown Molotov. In Turkey using a Molotov due to this case became infamous and thus carried a more heavy sentence after. I believe more were injured but I could not find any reliable sources -yet-. The insinuation that they would be satisfied if more people had died is not a real grounds to argue it is not unusual enough. The argument "A whole article isn't needed for molotovs being thrown at a bus." is grossly misunderstanding and ignorantly ignoring the history and factors involved. Specifically the Turkish state committing a state sponsored terrorist attack. I have already messaged the closer Missvain to find out exactly why the final conclusion was made and to see if I could overturn, but was pointed here. User_talk:Missvain&diff=next&oldid=1026420936. Granted it was relisted a few times, but nobody came forward to support (I assume a lack of knowledge on the story) I tried to explain everything, but it seems like my points were ignored and the majority votes were rather followed. TataofTata ( talk) 15:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes I can try to provide some sources for you, S_Marshall. Luckily I saved some of my sources and one copy of the page.
It is important to understand the difficulty journalists face in Turkey and the current regimes now almost complete control of governing bodies involving investigating this properly. TataofTata ( talk) 23:58, 21 August 2021 (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. |
Meets notability requirements: Has played percussion on over 1,000 releases, is affiliated with more bands other than Toto such as Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder, Christopher Cross, and Boz Scaggs, has been listed as one of the top five percussionists in various magazines. His deleted page still receives hundreds of visits per month, which demonstrates interest in Castro and his work. Additionally, the deletion process only lasted two days, which is much shorter than the standard seven days usually allotted. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 12:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 14:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:43, 20 August 2021 (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'm not thrilled to be here as I believe there to be a high chance of
worms escaping, but please see
User talk:Materialscientist#A1 and A7, especially
the response from the deleting administrator. While a bad article that would probably not survive AfD (and for that matter, probably PROD), there was no basis for it to be deleted as A1 or A7, nor did G3 (as Materialscientist states, it was a
Any outcome is fine with me, I just note technical details:
|
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 close as keep does not appear to reflect the consensus of valid arguments. The "keep" arguments were that he was a player on the Egyptian National basketball team and a professional team that won the inaugural competition of a new continental championship. Neither of these arguments satisfies either WP:NSPORTS or WP:NBASKETBALL. Even if we accepted that these SNG's were satisfied they are only a refutable presumption of notability. The nominator and Extraordinary Writ's relisting comment both point out this refutation. That's not to mention the article creator's double !vote and a !vote of "notable enough". The article itself also shows a distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, being sourced to a Twitter profile, a tweet, and bare database listings. The only actual article in the sources (from FIBA) does not mention the article subject. I'm also relying on Alvaldi's analysis here about lack of significant coverage in Arabic and Egyptian media. Based on the complete lack of recognizable basis in policy for the "keep" !votes, the consensus should have been "delete". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 16 August 2021 (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 my opinion, the page was unjustly deleted under A7 speedy deletion criteria. The page was at AfD and before any discussion could happen the page was removed. The subject has enough coverage in Google searches that at least it doesn't fall under CSD A7 criteria. Vertinagin ( talk) 13:44, 15 August 2021 (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 my opinion, the article World Pantheist Movement was unjustly deleted, as it is one of the largest organizations whose goal is to spread pantheism worldwide. Moreover, other comparable organizations are still present on Wikipedia ( Universal Pantheist Society and The Paradise Project) and so far not subject to any deletion discussion – although the sources mentioned there are mostly only primary sources as well. As can be seen from the deletion discussion page, the association has been mentioned in relevant sources (including by Richard Dawkins as a renowned scientist) and only requires further revision with adjustment of the sources. I would like to ask an administrator to review the corresponding page again. Thank you. P.S.: I have temporarily created a redirect to the relevant section of the article Pantheism. Lothaeus ( talk) 11:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
I believe that the deletion review should be used because: significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. In addition, the justification for the original deletion of the page several months ago was not that it "wasn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia" (as the Speedy deletion notes indicate), but rather that "deletion is the best solution as repairing the article would take what amounts to a huge amount of time". There was just too much information on that page for anyone to make sense of it. Yesterday, I spent the whole day researching this topic and found several new and notable sources and citations that I believe show the notability of this topic and warrant it to be reviewed. Since the reasoning was not necessarily notability but rather an overwhelming amount of information, mixed with self-published sources, I took the time to heavily rewrite the article (using a backup found on the Wayback Machine). I removed all of the self-published, Facebook and Instagram sources; I removed all of what was pointed as trivial information (a lot of it had to do with minute detailing of the website's design and non-notable radio show mentions). I also added new citations to reputable and notable newspapers and magazines that have quoted or republished articles written by The Obelisk: Vice, [1] Rolling Stone, [2] Classic Rock, [3] Blabbermouth, [4] [5] MetalSucks, [6] The Baltimore Sun, [7] BrooklynVegan, [8] CVLT Nation, [9] Under the Radar, [10] and Boise Weekly. [11] Nevertheless, my new article was twice speedy deleted, without the new information and citations being reviewed or taken into consideration. I would therefore really appreciate this topic being reviewed for Wikipedia inclusion, in view of these new findings. Fanofblackened ( talk) 21:36, 11 August 2021 (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. |
Withdraw - Article was closed incorrectly by a non-administrator with only about 700 total edits at the time.
|
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 Keep on the basis that local coverage is not generally excluded from supporting notability however IMHO there's nothing substantial or in-depth at this present time on this bus station - Most if not all sources are 1 bit mentions or LOCAL coverage, My other issue is that Nu-Venture was deleted due to the exact same reasons (having Local/routine coverage only).... so at present we have contradictory information - Either RL0919 is correct with the Cleakheaton Keep (in which case the Nu-Venture article should then be undeleted/moved back from userpage), or they were wrong (in which case this should be deleted), Thanks – Davey2010 Talk 22:25, 5 August 2021 (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. |
Afd was closed by a non-admin with around 700 edits to the account at the time. The AfD
|
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. |
csda7 is invalid because the article asserted significance -- for example, its scanners out-performed four other notable companies.-- RZuo ( talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as "convert to container category" with the rationale "Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." This is very subjective - with the disclaimer that I was the category's creator and voted keep, I nonetheless find the keep arguments well-articulated, and the opposing one much less so. In particular, I note that I and others have replied to several voters who suggested containerization, but said voters never replied to us. It's disappointing that silent refusal to participate in the discussion is treated as "convincing". I could see this being closed as no consensus, or relisted, but I don't think closing this as de facto delete (containerize isn't much better) is the right action. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel attacked here.—
S Marshall
T/
C 09:24, 10 August 2021 (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 BLP is NOTABLE and has been discussed directly in detail by various reputed media houses of India. Ht24 ( talk) 06:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear Stifle, The deleting admin User talk:Explicit was notified and I have had discussions with him regarding undeleting the page. Dear Robert McClenon, I am arguing to undelete the page or allow me to submit a new draft for re-consideration as an article in line with the Wikipedia policies and terms of use. Ht24 ( talk) 15:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Dear Stifle and Explicit, Kindly respond to my previous query. Thanks! Ht24 ( talk) 07:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC) I would request you ( Stifle) to undelete the page or ask some Indian editors to review the same as per the recommendation made by Explicit.
Dear S Marshall I found this Indian Express article but didn't mention it because I was told by one of the moderators that there shouldn't be any quotations from the person whose article is being written. Also, I didn't know that only The Hindu and The Indian Express were considered reliable sources. Can you please let me know what National Hindi Dailies would you consider as reliable because Shaurya Doval's home state is a Hindi-speaking state and many articles have been published about him in the native language? Also, would you consider the media house The Pioneer [15] as reliable? Please let me know. Thanks! Ht24 ( talk) 10:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all the valuable inputs by the moderators here. I am really happy to see the kind of environment you people give for others to learn. S Marshall, hahaha. I haven't been provided any remuneration for this discussion. But, thank you for asking. I will try to draft a new article in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for considering and your help here! Ht24 ( talk) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Didn't know that. Is there a maximum time limit as well? Stifle |
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 AfD was closed early by an involved non-admin participant less than twenty-four hours after nomination and after only two editors had weighed in. Most obviously, this violates WP:NACD, which states in relevant part "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion". On his talk page, the closer attempted to justify his closure by invoking WP:IAR, but this is precisely the case that the "rules" were made for: involved participants should not close discussions in their favor, particularly when a clear consensus hasn't yet formed. Not only is that supported by the guidelines, it's also common sense. See WP:NOTIAR. This is a textbook WP:BADNAC, so the AfD should be relisted, perhaps speedily. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (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. |
Per comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22 § 🥺, it looks like consensus around emoji redirects is that there shouldn't be any emoji without a redirect to somewhere, so re-creating this as a soft redirect to wikt:🔞 would be reasonable (or allowing discussion of a potentially better target). Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:38, 31 August 2021 (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. |
Closer incorrectly closed as Keep with a minimal number of participants evaluating sources using the "wrong" guideline when a "relist" was more appropriate. Closer also claims to have followed correct procedure but explanation at Talk page is flawed and contradictory but claims they're now being badgered (and oddly, claims they knew all along their close would be challenged??) HighKing ++ 10:37, 31 August 2021 (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. |
Letsgetgoing ( talk) 05:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC) The article was recently posted and was deleted. Could not contest it either, it was gone right away giving me no option to defend it. The person is a real person and is on several web sites and social media. A social media influencer. I created the article because I felt she should have a page given those reasons, no different than others here. I've done articles before, so this making a new one in general wasn't impossible. WhoAteMyButter deleted it, saying it didn't have any reliable sourcing (Which it did), and duggested nothing could be done by me until a "special someone comes and reviews your request. They can then decide to undelete it and restore it, or do nothing and not undelete it." I did ask others like User:Athaenara?Athaenara but it went nowhere, until Graeme Bartlett suggested WP:DRV. Please undelete the page. If anything needs to be changed or improve on, let me know and I will do it. But please give me a chance to do them or defend the page, instead of just getting rid of it. It's unfair, and I cannot do anything to make the changes if no one gives me that chance. Letsgetgoing ( talk) 05:16, 31 August 2021 (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. |
ECOTIC Association is one of the key players of the e-Waste management industry in Romania, implementing innovative projects focused on awareness raising and e-Waste Collection. As one of the most important players in the Romanian market it deserves an entry in the Romanian version of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The article has been revised various times and new third-party sources have been added as references. Should there be need for new revisions these can be made once the page is restored. Thank you! Liviu843 ( talk) 12:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Liviu843 |
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 original RFD for this article was only commented on (including the submitter) by a total of five editors and largely on the basis of supposedly being an "advertorially-toned page", which I dispute. This is a company which has largely taken the place of the old Silicon Graphics in making high-end commodity PC workstations in the post- RISC Unix workstation era ( 2000s decade). The company is admittedly small but not new; they were founded in 2002 and, like SGI before them, their main costumers are in movie special effects and high-end graphics applications. The original article was not perfect in the sense of good third-party sources but this can easily be rectified. Also, BOXX Technologies was the first company to actually ship 64-bit x86 PC systems in 2003; this is provable with third-party sources. Bumm13 ( talk) 23:37, 30 August 2021 (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 has been revealed that 1/2 of the people giving opinions and 2/3rds of the people arguing for deletion were the same person engaging in sock puppetry. See [1] and [2] [3]. Discounting this user's participation we are left with one comment in support of the article and one weak delete. While this AfD may have come to the correct conclusion it is also possible that it may have been unduly influenced by sock puppetry. I recommend given the circumstances that we relist the AfD. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:36, 26 August 2021 (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. |
Unusual NAC close by Aj Ajay Mehta 007 coming just hours after second relist by Qwaiiplayer. There were two keep !votes and two comments on sourcing. I suspect this discussion should have been left open. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (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. |
Minimally attended discussion of nom that was potentially flawed because it ignored that the cat was part of an established category structure ( Category:Italian propagandists, Category:German propagandists, many others). Subsequently cat has been recreated, speedy deleted, and is now populated as a WP:REDNOT. Suggest restoring, immediately relisting to allow broader discussion. Closing admin notified on talk page, here, has no opposition. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (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 last version can be found here. Primary issue of the debate was the use Daily Californian articles as some of the main sources to establish notability. The newspaper is independent of UC Berkeley. In addition Berkeley Student Cooperative which Lothlorien Hall is part of, is independent of the University. It’s only requirement is that residents are students, and just as many residents are Bay Area students from other colleges as from UC Berkeley. I think another reason for some editors' failing to recognize Lothlorien’s notability, was that the 1984 Killing of Roberta 'Bibi' Lee was only briefly mentioned. A former resident of Lothlorien was killed by her boyfriend a resident of the house. At first she was considered missing, and a search party was organized by Lothlorien (with the the search center known as Treehaven) over 2,000 people participated and approximately 3 million flyers were distributed along the west coast. This was covered nationally. Lothlorien retained a 60's new age/hippy/spiritual nature of the house's previous resident - One World Family Commune, which is embraced by a large portion of the residents. The killing has left an impact on this aspect and the ghost of killed ‘Bibi' is considered to haunt the place. This has been addressed in detail by Daily California article as well as in a published book (this link is to an article about it). Lothlorien is one of the book's primary subjects. It was not cited at the time. There is an article regarding Lothlorien, published in Communities, life in cooperative culture a quarterly journal. Editors have questioned the notability of the subject, even though there are approximately 1,500 communes currently established or in planning phase in the United States. The journal is carried in academic libraries of universities like Cornell, San Diego State and Universite de Montreal. Also, like two other BSC houses - Cloyne Court Hotel and Kingman Hall, the 2405 Prospect Ave. part of the co-op carries historical and architectural significance. Unlike the other two it has not been officially recognized as a historical landmark by Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, however it does consider it to be notable - it has a facebook entry regarding it and it's part of their Berkeley tour. The building was known as the Maxwell House because of its original resident George Hebard Maxwell the “Father of Reclamation" who was the co-author of National Reclamation Act that allowed the development projects like Hoover Dam, without such dams there would not be a western half of the United States. Thank you for looking over this. Rybkovich ( talk) 04:38, 26 August 2021 (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 know Titanfall 3 was real and not a hoax, but the admin deleted my draft page for being a hoax. 114.122.101.202 ( talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (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 two reliable sources evaluating the bias and reliability of Consortiumnews (cf. [4] & [5]), thus it is no doubt notable. RekishiEJ ( talk) 10:19, 23 August 2021 (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. | |||
Rationale as per the REFUND request here. These are two articles I AfD'd a long time ago. A recent RfC shows that the common understanding of the reliability of these sources wasn't correct. As a result, I think these should be undeleted, and subject to new AfDs if there is still appetite to delete them. Sources of these articles at the time of deletion:
| |||
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 wish to challenge this deletion as I believe the deletion discussion seemed to be all over the place with incorrect assumptions, but later settles on Notability however the story itself contradicts that very argument. The topic matter is regarding a terrorist attack in Istanbul, Turkey in 2009 which later on a few higher ranking political figures have stated that it was in fact done by Turkish secret police or some clandestine organization within the Turkish government. This indecent was heavily publicized by Turkish media at the time. The blame has been put on the PKK even till this day by the Turkish state and media, yet that does not seem to be the case. A single person died due to serve burns, specifically from a thrown Molotov. In Turkey using a Molotov due to this case became infamous and thus carried a more heavy sentence after. I believe more were injured but I could not find any reliable sources -yet-. The insinuation that they would be satisfied if more people had died is not a real grounds to argue it is not unusual enough. The argument "A whole article isn't needed for molotovs being thrown at a bus." is grossly misunderstanding and ignorantly ignoring the history and factors involved. Specifically the Turkish state committing a state sponsored terrorist attack. I have already messaged the closer Missvain to find out exactly why the final conclusion was made and to see if I could overturn, but was pointed here. User_talk:Missvain&diff=next&oldid=1026420936. Granted it was relisted a few times, but nobody came forward to support (I assume a lack of knowledge on the story) I tried to explain everything, but it seems like my points were ignored and the majority votes were rather followed. TataofTata ( talk) 15:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes I can try to provide some sources for you, S_Marshall. Luckily I saved some of my sources and one copy of the page.
It is important to understand the difficulty journalists face in Turkey and the current regimes now almost complete control of governing bodies involving investigating this properly. TataofTata ( talk) 23:58, 21 August 2021 (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. |
Meets notability requirements: Has played percussion on over 1,000 releases, is affiliated with more bands other than Toto such as Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder, Christopher Cross, and Boz Scaggs, has been listed as one of the top five percussionists in various magazines. His deleted page still receives hundreds of visits per month, which demonstrates interest in Castro and his work. Additionally, the deletion process only lasted two days, which is much shorter than the standard seven days usually allotted. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 12:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 14:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:43, 20 August 2021 (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'm not thrilled to be here as I believe there to be a high chance of
worms escaping, but please see
User talk:Materialscientist#A1 and A7, especially
the response from the deleting administrator. While a bad article that would probably not survive AfD (and for that matter, probably PROD), there was no basis for it to be deleted as A1 or A7, nor did G3 (as Materialscientist states, it was a
Any outcome is fine with me, I just note technical details:
|
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 close as keep does not appear to reflect the consensus of valid arguments. The "keep" arguments were that he was a player on the Egyptian National basketball team and a professional team that won the inaugural competition of a new continental championship. Neither of these arguments satisfies either WP:NSPORTS or WP:NBASKETBALL. Even if we accepted that these SNG's were satisfied they are only a refutable presumption of notability. The nominator and Extraordinary Writ's relisting comment both point out this refutation. That's not to mention the article creator's double !vote and a !vote of "notable enough". The article itself also shows a distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, being sourced to a Twitter profile, a tweet, and bare database listings. The only actual article in the sources (from FIBA) does not mention the article subject. I'm also relying on Alvaldi's analysis here about lack of significant coverage in Arabic and Egyptian media. Based on the complete lack of recognizable basis in policy for the "keep" !votes, the consensus should have been "delete". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 16 August 2021 (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 my opinion, the page was unjustly deleted under A7 speedy deletion criteria. The page was at AfD and before any discussion could happen the page was removed. The subject has enough coverage in Google searches that at least it doesn't fall under CSD A7 criteria. Vertinagin ( talk) 13:44, 15 August 2021 (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 my opinion, the article World Pantheist Movement was unjustly deleted, as it is one of the largest organizations whose goal is to spread pantheism worldwide. Moreover, other comparable organizations are still present on Wikipedia ( Universal Pantheist Society and The Paradise Project) and so far not subject to any deletion discussion – although the sources mentioned there are mostly only primary sources as well. As can be seen from the deletion discussion page, the association has been mentioned in relevant sources (including by Richard Dawkins as a renowned scientist) and only requires further revision with adjustment of the sources. I would like to ask an administrator to review the corresponding page again. Thank you. P.S.: I have temporarily created a redirect to the relevant section of the article Pantheism. Lothaeus ( talk) 11:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
I believe that the deletion review should be used because: significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. In addition, the justification for the original deletion of the page several months ago was not that it "wasn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia" (as the Speedy deletion notes indicate), but rather that "deletion is the best solution as repairing the article would take what amounts to a huge amount of time". There was just too much information on that page for anyone to make sense of it. Yesterday, I spent the whole day researching this topic and found several new and notable sources and citations that I believe show the notability of this topic and warrant it to be reviewed. Since the reasoning was not necessarily notability but rather an overwhelming amount of information, mixed with self-published sources, I took the time to heavily rewrite the article (using a backup found on the Wayback Machine). I removed all of the self-published, Facebook and Instagram sources; I removed all of what was pointed as trivial information (a lot of it had to do with minute detailing of the website's design and non-notable radio show mentions). I also added new citations to reputable and notable newspapers and magazines that have quoted or republished articles written by The Obelisk: Vice, [1] Rolling Stone, [2] Classic Rock, [3] Blabbermouth, [4] [5] MetalSucks, [6] The Baltimore Sun, [7] BrooklynVegan, [8] CVLT Nation, [9] Under the Radar, [10] and Boise Weekly. [11] Nevertheless, my new article was twice speedy deleted, without the new information and citations being reviewed or taken into consideration. I would therefore really appreciate this topic being reviewed for Wikipedia inclusion, in view of these new findings. Fanofblackened ( talk) 21:36, 11 August 2021 (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. |
Withdraw - Article was closed incorrectly by a non-administrator with only about 700 total edits at the time.
|
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 Keep on the basis that local coverage is not generally excluded from supporting notability however IMHO there's nothing substantial or in-depth at this present time on this bus station - Most if not all sources are 1 bit mentions or LOCAL coverage, My other issue is that Nu-Venture was deleted due to the exact same reasons (having Local/routine coverage only).... so at present we have contradictory information - Either RL0919 is correct with the Cleakheaton Keep (in which case the Nu-Venture article should then be undeleted/moved back from userpage), or they were wrong (in which case this should be deleted), Thanks – Davey2010 Talk 22:25, 5 August 2021 (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. |
Afd was closed by a non-admin with around 700 edits to the account at the time. The AfD
|
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. |
csda7 is invalid because the article asserted significance -- for example, its scanners out-performed four other notable companies.-- RZuo ( talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as "convert to container category" with the rationale "Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." This is very subjective - with the disclaimer that I was the category's creator and voted keep, I nonetheless find the keep arguments well-articulated, and the opposing one much less so. In particular, I note that I and others have replied to several voters who suggested containerization, but said voters never replied to us. It's disappointing that silent refusal to participate in the discussion is treated as "convincing". I could see this being closed as no consensus, or relisted, but I don't think closing this as de facto delete (containerize isn't much better) is the right action. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel attacked here.—
S Marshall
T/
C 09:24, 10 August 2021 (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 BLP is NOTABLE and has been discussed directly in detail by various reputed media houses of India. Ht24 ( talk) 06:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear Stifle, The deleting admin User talk:Explicit was notified and I have had discussions with him regarding undeleting the page. Dear Robert McClenon, I am arguing to undelete the page or allow me to submit a new draft for re-consideration as an article in line with the Wikipedia policies and terms of use. Ht24 ( talk) 15:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Dear Stifle and Explicit, Kindly respond to my previous query. Thanks! Ht24 ( talk) 07:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC) I would request you ( Stifle) to undelete the page or ask some Indian editors to review the same as per the recommendation made by Explicit.
Dear S Marshall I found this Indian Express article but didn't mention it because I was told by one of the moderators that there shouldn't be any quotations from the person whose article is being written. Also, I didn't know that only The Hindu and The Indian Express were considered reliable sources. Can you please let me know what National Hindi Dailies would you consider as reliable because Shaurya Doval's home state is a Hindi-speaking state and many articles have been published about him in the native language? Also, would you consider the media house The Pioneer [15] as reliable? Please let me know. Thanks! Ht24 ( talk) 10:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all the valuable inputs by the moderators here. I am really happy to see the kind of environment you people give for others to learn. S Marshall, hahaha. I haven't been provided any remuneration for this discussion. But, thank you for asking. I will try to draft a new article in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for considering and your help here! Ht24 ( talk) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Didn't know that. Is there a maximum time limit as well? Stifle |
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 AfD was closed early by an involved non-admin participant less than twenty-four hours after nomination and after only two editors had weighed in. Most obviously, this violates WP:NACD, which states in relevant part "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion". On his talk page, the closer attempted to justify his closure by invoking WP:IAR, but this is precisely the case that the "rules" were made for: involved participants should not close discussions in their favor, particularly when a clear consensus hasn't yet formed. Not only is that supported by the guidelines, it's also common sense. See WP:NOTIAR. This is a textbook WP:BADNAC, so the AfD should be relisted, perhaps speedily. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |