|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are several reviews here, here, and here. DareshMohan ( talk) 03:00, 31 March 2022 (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 would like to request a review for the deletion of this page that I created. Author's Comments The company has received sustained news coverage since 2020 by both local and international new sources, these are not just passing mentions. What I did wrong was that I did not cite all of these publications in the article.
Neutral Point of View It was also indicated that writing was not neutral, I edited the article to make it more neutral. Black hat SEO The nominator mentioned that this is a black hat SEO, I don't know what a black hat SEO is, the only link I mentioned in the article was to the official website Discussion There were only three votes.
Notability Regarding notability, the start up space in Pakistan is not the same as in other parts of the world, Pakistani companies have just started taking this route of funding, most of the activity has only been in the last two years, so it is very notable inside Pakistan. $100 million funding in Pakistan is notable itself, apart from the fact that these are Pakistan's largest funding rounds. Elmisnter! ( talk) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (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. |
inconsistency between deleting this specific article while keeping 36 others designed and powered exactly the same way :
Please delete them all or restore the article to Montreal. Urbanut ( talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (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 result was summed up by an inexperienced editor based on Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. The main problem of the article is that there are no secondary sources that would describe the event. The fact that the Ukrainian army bombed the Russian air base has not been confirmed by either Russian or Ukrainian official sources. All information comes from a report by Russian propagandist Semyon Pegov, which was later reprinted by Ukrainian and other media. Please consider this case with an experienced administrator. Yakudza ( talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (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. | |||
Below I have collapsed several quasi-identical review requests by Pselvaganapathy pertaining to speedily deleted articles about roads in India, so as to allow discussion of this group of requests as a whole. Sandstein 07:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion (Indian road articles)
| |||
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 prodded last year and I somehow missed it. Please restore the content, but leave the redirect in place while I figure out what to do next. Please put the talk page back as well. Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (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 would like to request to restore this page. The page was in deletion for discussion process but the process hasn't been followed. The article deleted within 4 - 5 after relisting. The article has notability and they are active. So I again request to restore this article. -- 43.231.213.160 ( talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (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. |
First I should declare I wrote the article and I also note this was a difficult decision and I acknowledge the good faith decision by the closing admin and the careful explanation provided when I asked about it. However, I request a review primarily because I think there was no consensus and I therefore disagree with the conclusion that consensus was reached for any outcome. Secondary to that, I think it is unfair that someone voted twice differently (maybe not in opposite directions, but giving the impression there was more delete votes than there was) ; I think there was some "I do not like" in one delete argument and while I see that those arguing for delete were slightly higher in number, I think there was a very compelling explanation of why BLP1E does not apply that nobody arguing to delete addressed that = I am saying the "keep" crowd presented a more policy-driven argument, even if they were in slight minority. If the philosophy on Wikipedia is "When in doubt, don't delete", was there really no doubt here? So primary request: it be considered "no consensus" and secondary point that some delete votes should have been disregarded or discounted. CT55555 ( talk) 18:28, 28 March 2022 (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 WP:SNOW close after 50 minutes and only 7 !votes is simply a partisan attempt to impose the closer's views. It is sn outrageous abuse of WP:SNOW. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I heartily endorse the "drop the stick" idea here. I'll note that this is just my 2nd entry on this page, compared to 16 for BHG. IMHO the page can be closed ASAP - which might mean tomorrow evening, 7 full days after it started. But the issue has clearly been decided already, on multiple fora.
Smallbones(
smalltalk) 13:39, 2 April 2022 (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. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are multiple reviews here, here, here, and here. There is a long article on production here (can press Next two times), here, and here. This film is one of the few films where Mammootty plays dual roles as mentioned here and here. Source about release here. Source about box office performance here. DareshMohan ( talk) 05:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
In the deletion discussion there were several arguments put forward on what to do with the article, which is about a train station in India. A few different arguments were put forward:
The close was The closer made a mistake in how they
ascertained what the consensus was. In this case, the relevant notability guideline is pretty clearly
WP:GEOFEAT, which itself specifies that the notability of Given that only two users brought up concerns that the relevant notability guideline is GNG (me and Buidhe) and that the discussion on that point was not extensive, I request that this close be overturned and relisted. The purpose of a relist would be to allow for additional conversation on the extent to which sources presented in the discussion help satisfy WP:GNG. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:34, 25 March 2022 (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. |
Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability
WP:N which is not correct as the actress has done four lead roles. Two main lead and two parallel lead roles. According to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary (2nd nomination), the article was deleted because Choudhary had only one significant role. Her lead roles in four different bollywood films were considered unaccredited because those films were not box-office hits. But it should be noted that still, Choudhary has done more significant lead roles which was in a web-series named '3g gaali gloch girls' of Ullu app. It is a significant lead role because the series was declared one of the best indian web-series in 2020. Please check
[11].
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N which is not correct as the actress has done several lead roles. She was the lead with titular role in Nimki Mukhiya & Nimki Vidhayak and also negative lead Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. Apart from these lead roles she has also done prominent roles in films. She is verified across all social media platforms as a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Thank you. Commonedits ( talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (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. |
Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N in 2019. However, now she has become a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Commonedits ( talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (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. |
believe the closer of the discussion incorrectly interpreted that consensus was not reached. All comments supported deletion, except for comments from the account that created the page in the first place, and who has made few other contributions to Wikipedia. Some comments supported merging some data into existing article, but consensus appeared to be for deletion Ksoze1 ( talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (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. |
Now, we do have a similar template ( Template:Title notice) that is automatically added by RMCD bot. Originally, some people suggested that the template be made into a bot-only template, as seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20120620141501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Movenotice and the 2012 TfD. But now we do have such a template. I propose in this DRV that the following be done:
|
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. |
Since its deletion as a category in December 2008 and after 14 years, enough articles and categories have been created to more accurately determine who is conservative on English Wikipedia (just as the same category exists in other languages), being this is the main argument for its elimination, the supposed ambiguity between what is conservative and what is not (see Category:Conservatism). Conservatism is a political, social, intellectual, and religious movement just like any other, such as liberals, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. See as a reference of all these movements Category:People by political orientation. I ask that its removal be reviewed and reconsidered for a correct categorization on Wikipedia. Igallards7 ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
no consensus at all Abs11a ( talk) 13:35, 17 March 2022 (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. |
Валерий Пасько ( talk) 19:14, 19 March 2022 (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 New Draft was created to address issues regarding verifiability and notability. Requesting undeletion. Exukvera ( talk) 01:53, 15 March 2022 (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. |
Regionally known place name was the residence of the Harlan, Evans, Gamboas, Lopez, and Dani families comparable in size and importance to Plaskett, California — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 06:07, 14 March 2022 (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. |
Speedily deleted with the reason given as "Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" which I do not believe was appropriate. The article indicated Faassen is significant because he is the son-in-law of Vladimir Putin, the husband of his eldest daughter Maria Vorontsova. I can see how someone might consider that inherited notability, however I believe Faassen meets notability guidelines. Most of the information that was in his article can be found in a prior revision of Vorontsova's article here, but there was other information in the article; I recall another editor adding a Dutch source. This should have been the subject of a deletion discussion but, instead, the article was speedily deleted. I am the page creator and I was not notified; I only found out after the fact and thus had no way to contest the deletion before it occurred. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 01:56, 12 March 2022 (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. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There is a full Sify review here and a review by National critic Malini Mannath who writes for The New Indian Express here. DareshMohan ( talk) 23:14, 11 March 2022 (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. |
Full disclosure, I was the nominator. The article was closed as "no consensus", but I do not believe it was appropriately weighted for policy-based arguments on this discussion about a Burundian soccer player. The delete votes were all made on the basis of failing WP:GNG (see discussion, source checks were done, including specific ones to Burundian media, no SIGCOV found) while most of the keep votes were made on the basis of passing WP:NFOOTY, and few others citing WP:BIAS (an essay). While WP:FOOTY is an SNG, there are two problems with its use in this discussion. Firstly, this RfC for NSPORTS (of which NFOOTY is a part) was just done, and while it hasn't been implemented yet one of the things agreed upon was the requiring of the provision of at least one example of SIGCOV in deletion discussions for sports figures. This did not happen in this discussion. Secondly, and more importantly, even before this RfC there was/still is an explanatory note at the top of NSPORTS which reads: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. So clearly failing GNG means that this article should be deleted, regardless of the old WP:FOOTY criteria. If you have any doubts, please read the deletion discussion for more information. Indy beetle ( talk) 01:02, 11 March 2022 (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 "keep", and I invite you to consider whether that was an accurate reflection of the consensus. — S Marshall T/ C 13:46, 10 March 2022 (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 humbly request that this file and its associated article be restored/undeleted as they may/might be recreated in the future months by someone else (which would be an NFC/NFCC violation and CSD candidates). There is one revision the deleting admin hasn't seen thoroughly for me: the revision of this user ( Polygork) which displays/displayed the minimum requirement for an article inclusion here in/on/at WP. Ahnmine ( talk) 09:19, 8 March 2022 (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. |
Wish to have a userify/draftification of this page to consider working on it. To be very clear there is no challenge to the result of the XfD but I wish to examine this biography in more detail. I wish to minimize drama sufficient to get draft restored, and I do have drama capability if necessary. Return to mainspace pretty obviously would have to be via AfC/DRV if developed to that extent that is reasonable. Did request at closer's page but we have past history and I apologise for not reading the blurb at the top of their talk page ... the blue on pink is just about clear enough to read but I am colour defective and my vision certainly took to avoiding reading it. Its also been rejected WP:REFUND ( Special:Diff/1075813457). I am (unusually) neither contacting the closer not the refund refuser and both have previously essentially asked me or had on their talk page they wish to minimize contact (Actually I don't think I have to for a refund) ... if someone else feels that is necessary please feel free to do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2022 (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. |
Underline formatting is mine. Page created 2022-01-31T20:25:43 by Bestof2022, blocked in response to a 2022-03-01 ANI thread. Speedy deletion reason: " G5: Created by a banned or blocked user ( Friedjof) in violation of ban or block" Last edit summary of the deleted page, me removing a fresh PROD, over 15 minutes before the speedy deletion happened: "It's not that easy. Regarding 'sock': The user wasn't blocked at the time of creation, on any account. Regarding NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR#1 may be satisfied per "Further reading" added now. Wikidata-linked to the German article. I don't generally oppose deleting the article, but I oppose doing so without a proper AfD discussion." Well, this may have been overlooked! So I asked Dennis Brown on his talk page which block he was talking about. The specific question was not answered; I asked again. Turns out there is actually no such block. [25] Okay, I said! If there's no actual speedy deletion reason, I will probably undelete the page (?!)...
Here's the spirit: Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, the rest goes through a deletion discussion or stays on Wikipedia.
What kind of "policy spirit" can possibly be seen in the exact opposite of what the policies say and mean? The strong formatting is there for a reason. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (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 there was no consensus, and the AFD should have been closed with No Consensus, rather than a REDIRECT/MERGE. The page was relisted twice, with only one participant (me) post-relisting. I provided sources in the AFD showing notability, and there was no response to that. Park3r ( talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (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. |
"Redirect/merge" supervote similar to the overturned Laodice AfD. The closer is the same, closure was the same, article's creator is the same, and the manner of the article's creation was kind of the same (misreading of sources, but this time by cherrypicking instead of pure invention). Nobody voted keep or merge. There is 1 merge-turned-redirect pure-vote without rationale, by a distracted editor who, as in the Laodice AfD (it's the same person), didn't seem aware that the concern was V and OR, rather than N – but a case was also made against the title's suitability as a search term. The closer, again, saw "no consensus about whether to delete it as unverifiable or to redirect/merge". I see a consensus to delete as un-V (or, at least, as noncompliant with WP:CCPOL), no agreement for a redirect, and no support for a merge. One remark on the closer's conduct ( talk p). At first he falsely claimed that no argument had been made against redirection (cf. his similar misassessment of the Laodice AfD). Second, he believes that, absent a consensus for a redirect or merge, a page gets deleted by default. When I told him he was being inconsistent for not applying the same standard here, he refused to address the concern and dismissively ended the talk. Avilich ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2022 (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 closer gave no expanation for the closure. The vote was 4 keep and 4 delete, an explanation to the closure would be appreciated else it shouldn't be deleted -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:05, 2 March 2022 (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 closer gave no explanation for the closure. This AfD nomination concerns two articles. While some policy-based arguments were made for Maud Angelica's notability, none whatsoever were made for the notability of her younger sister Leah Isadora. Not a single editor attempted to demonstrate her having received significant coverage in reliable sources. If the keep !votes, which claim the sisters are notable for being the grandchildren of a king, are considered to have merit, it should be explained why because this fully contradicts WP:INVALIDBIO and ignores WP:BASIC. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:07, 2 March 2022 (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. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are several reviews here, here, and here. DareshMohan ( talk) 03:00, 31 March 2022 (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 would like to request a review for the deletion of this page that I created. Author's Comments The company has received sustained news coverage since 2020 by both local and international new sources, these are not just passing mentions. What I did wrong was that I did not cite all of these publications in the article.
Neutral Point of View It was also indicated that writing was not neutral, I edited the article to make it more neutral. Black hat SEO The nominator mentioned that this is a black hat SEO, I don't know what a black hat SEO is, the only link I mentioned in the article was to the official website Discussion There were only three votes.
Notability Regarding notability, the start up space in Pakistan is not the same as in other parts of the world, Pakistani companies have just started taking this route of funding, most of the activity has only been in the last two years, so it is very notable inside Pakistan. $100 million funding in Pakistan is notable itself, apart from the fact that these are Pakistan's largest funding rounds. Elmisnter! ( talk) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (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. |
inconsistency between deleting this specific article while keeping 36 others designed and powered exactly the same way :
Please delete them all or restore the article to Montreal. Urbanut ( talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (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 result was summed up by an inexperienced editor based on Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. The main problem of the article is that there are no secondary sources that would describe the event. The fact that the Ukrainian army bombed the Russian air base has not been confirmed by either Russian or Ukrainian official sources. All information comes from a report by Russian propagandist Semyon Pegov, which was later reprinted by Ukrainian and other media. Please consider this case with an experienced administrator. Yakudza ( talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (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. | |||
Below I have collapsed several quasi-identical review requests by Pselvaganapathy pertaining to speedily deleted articles about roads in India, so as to allow discussion of this group of requests as a whole. Sandstein 07:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion (Indian road articles)
| |||
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 prodded last year and I somehow missed it. Please restore the content, but leave the redirect in place while I figure out what to do next. Please put the talk page back as well. Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (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 would like to request to restore this page. The page was in deletion for discussion process but the process hasn't been followed. The article deleted within 4 - 5 after relisting. The article has notability and they are active. So I again request to restore this article. -- 43.231.213.160 ( talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (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. |
First I should declare I wrote the article and I also note this was a difficult decision and I acknowledge the good faith decision by the closing admin and the careful explanation provided when I asked about it. However, I request a review primarily because I think there was no consensus and I therefore disagree with the conclusion that consensus was reached for any outcome. Secondary to that, I think it is unfair that someone voted twice differently (maybe not in opposite directions, but giving the impression there was more delete votes than there was) ; I think there was some "I do not like" in one delete argument and while I see that those arguing for delete were slightly higher in number, I think there was a very compelling explanation of why BLP1E does not apply that nobody arguing to delete addressed that = I am saying the "keep" crowd presented a more policy-driven argument, even if they were in slight minority. If the philosophy on Wikipedia is "When in doubt, don't delete", was there really no doubt here? So primary request: it be considered "no consensus" and secondary point that some delete votes should have been disregarded or discounted. CT55555 ( talk) 18:28, 28 March 2022 (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 WP:SNOW close after 50 minutes and only 7 !votes is simply a partisan attempt to impose the closer's views. It is sn outrageous abuse of WP:SNOW. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I heartily endorse the "drop the stick" idea here. I'll note that this is just my 2nd entry on this page, compared to 16 for BHG. IMHO the page can be closed ASAP - which might mean tomorrow evening, 7 full days after it started. But the issue has clearly been decided already, on multiple fora.
Smallbones(
smalltalk) 13:39, 2 April 2022 (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. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are multiple reviews here, here, here, and here. There is a long article on production here (can press Next two times), here, and here. This film is one of the few films where Mammootty plays dual roles as mentioned here and here. Source about release here. Source about box office performance here. DareshMohan ( talk) 05:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
In the deletion discussion there were several arguments put forward on what to do with the article, which is about a train station in India. A few different arguments were put forward:
The close was The closer made a mistake in how they
ascertained what the consensus was. In this case, the relevant notability guideline is pretty clearly
WP:GEOFEAT, which itself specifies that the notability of Given that only two users brought up concerns that the relevant notability guideline is GNG (me and Buidhe) and that the discussion on that point was not extensive, I request that this close be overturned and relisted. The purpose of a relist would be to allow for additional conversation on the extent to which sources presented in the discussion help satisfy WP:GNG. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:34, 25 March 2022 (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. |
Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability
WP:N which is not correct as the actress has done four lead roles. Two main lead and two parallel lead roles. According to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary (2nd nomination), the article was deleted because Choudhary had only one significant role. Her lead roles in four different bollywood films were considered unaccredited because those films were not box-office hits. But it should be noted that still, Choudhary has done more significant lead roles which was in a web-series named '3g gaali gloch girls' of Ullu app. It is a significant lead role because the series was declared one of the best indian web-series in 2020. Please check
[11].
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N which is not correct as the actress has done several lead roles. She was the lead with titular role in Nimki Mukhiya & Nimki Vidhayak and also negative lead Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. Apart from these lead roles she has also done prominent roles in films. She is verified across all social media platforms as a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Thank you. Commonedits ( talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (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. |
Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N in 2019. However, now she has become a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Commonedits ( talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (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. |
believe the closer of the discussion incorrectly interpreted that consensus was not reached. All comments supported deletion, except for comments from the account that created the page in the first place, and who has made few other contributions to Wikipedia. Some comments supported merging some data into existing article, but consensus appeared to be for deletion Ksoze1 ( talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (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. |
Now, we do have a similar template ( Template:Title notice) that is automatically added by RMCD bot. Originally, some people suggested that the template be made into a bot-only template, as seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20120620141501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Movenotice and the 2012 TfD. But now we do have such a template. I propose in this DRV that the following be done:
|
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. |
Since its deletion as a category in December 2008 and after 14 years, enough articles and categories have been created to more accurately determine who is conservative on English Wikipedia (just as the same category exists in other languages), being this is the main argument for its elimination, the supposed ambiguity between what is conservative and what is not (see Category:Conservatism). Conservatism is a political, social, intellectual, and religious movement just like any other, such as liberals, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. See as a reference of all these movements Category:People by political orientation. I ask that its removal be reviewed and reconsidered for a correct categorization on Wikipedia. Igallards7 ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
no consensus at all Abs11a ( talk) 13:35, 17 March 2022 (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. |
Валерий Пасько ( talk) 19:14, 19 March 2022 (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 New Draft was created to address issues regarding verifiability and notability. Requesting undeletion. Exukvera ( talk) 01:53, 15 March 2022 (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. |
Regionally known place name was the residence of the Harlan, Evans, Gamboas, Lopez, and Dani families comparable in size and importance to Plaskett, California — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 06:07, 14 March 2022 (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. |
Speedily deleted with the reason given as "Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" which I do not believe was appropriate. The article indicated Faassen is significant because he is the son-in-law of Vladimir Putin, the husband of his eldest daughter Maria Vorontsova. I can see how someone might consider that inherited notability, however I believe Faassen meets notability guidelines. Most of the information that was in his article can be found in a prior revision of Vorontsova's article here, but there was other information in the article; I recall another editor adding a Dutch source. This should have been the subject of a deletion discussion but, instead, the article was speedily deleted. I am the page creator and I was not notified; I only found out after the fact and thus had no way to contest the deletion before it occurred. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 01:56, 12 March 2022 (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. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There is a full Sify review here and a review by National critic Malini Mannath who writes for The New Indian Express here. DareshMohan ( talk) 23:14, 11 March 2022 (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. |
Full disclosure, I was the nominator. The article was closed as "no consensus", but I do not believe it was appropriately weighted for policy-based arguments on this discussion about a Burundian soccer player. The delete votes were all made on the basis of failing WP:GNG (see discussion, source checks were done, including specific ones to Burundian media, no SIGCOV found) while most of the keep votes were made on the basis of passing WP:NFOOTY, and few others citing WP:BIAS (an essay). While WP:FOOTY is an SNG, there are two problems with its use in this discussion. Firstly, this RfC for NSPORTS (of which NFOOTY is a part) was just done, and while it hasn't been implemented yet one of the things agreed upon was the requiring of the provision of at least one example of SIGCOV in deletion discussions for sports figures. This did not happen in this discussion. Secondly, and more importantly, even before this RfC there was/still is an explanatory note at the top of NSPORTS which reads: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. So clearly failing GNG means that this article should be deleted, regardless of the old WP:FOOTY criteria. If you have any doubts, please read the deletion discussion for more information. Indy beetle ( talk) 01:02, 11 March 2022 (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 "keep", and I invite you to consider whether that was an accurate reflection of the consensus. — S Marshall T/ C 13:46, 10 March 2022 (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 humbly request that this file and its associated article be restored/undeleted as they may/might be recreated in the future months by someone else (which would be an NFC/NFCC violation and CSD candidates). There is one revision the deleting admin hasn't seen thoroughly for me: the revision of this user ( Polygork) which displays/displayed the minimum requirement for an article inclusion here in/on/at WP. Ahnmine ( talk) 09:19, 8 March 2022 (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. |
Wish to have a userify/draftification of this page to consider working on it. To be very clear there is no challenge to the result of the XfD but I wish to examine this biography in more detail. I wish to minimize drama sufficient to get draft restored, and I do have drama capability if necessary. Return to mainspace pretty obviously would have to be via AfC/DRV if developed to that extent that is reasonable. Did request at closer's page but we have past history and I apologise for not reading the blurb at the top of their talk page ... the blue on pink is just about clear enough to read but I am colour defective and my vision certainly took to avoiding reading it. Its also been rejected WP:REFUND ( Special:Diff/1075813457). I am (unusually) neither contacting the closer not the refund refuser and both have previously essentially asked me or had on their talk page they wish to minimize contact (Actually I don't think I have to for a refund) ... if someone else feels that is necessary please feel free to do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2022 (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. |
Underline formatting is mine. Page created 2022-01-31T20:25:43 by Bestof2022, blocked in response to a 2022-03-01 ANI thread. Speedy deletion reason: " G5: Created by a banned or blocked user ( Friedjof) in violation of ban or block" Last edit summary of the deleted page, me removing a fresh PROD, over 15 minutes before the speedy deletion happened: "It's not that easy. Regarding 'sock': The user wasn't blocked at the time of creation, on any account. Regarding NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR#1 may be satisfied per "Further reading" added now. Wikidata-linked to the German article. I don't generally oppose deleting the article, but I oppose doing so without a proper AfD discussion." Well, this may have been overlooked! So I asked Dennis Brown on his talk page which block he was talking about. The specific question was not answered; I asked again. Turns out there is actually no such block. [25] Okay, I said! If there's no actual speedy deletion reason, I will probably undelete the page (?!)...
Here's the spirit: Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, the rest goes through a deletion discussion or stays on Wikipedia.
What kind of "policy spirit" can possibly be seen in the exact opposite of what the policies say and mean? The strong formatting is there for a reason. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (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 there was no consensus, and the AFD should have been closed with No Consensus, rather than a REDIRECT/MERGE. The page was relisted twice, with only one participant (me) post-relisting. I provided sources in the AFD showing notability, and there was no response to that. Park3r ( talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (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. |
"Redirect/merge" supervote similar to the overturned Laodice AfD. The closer is the same, closure was the same, article's creator is the same, and the manner of the article's creation was kind of the same (misreading of sources, but this time by cherrypicking instead of pure invention). Nobody voted keep or merge. There is 1 merge-turned-redirect pure-vote without rationale, by a distracted editor who, as in the Laodice AfD (it's the same person), didn't seem aware that the concern was V and OR, rather than N – but a case was also made against the title's suitability as a search term. The closer, again, saw "no consensus about whether to delete it as unverifiable or to redirect/merge". I see a consensus to delete as un-V (or, at least, as noncompliant with WP:CCPOL), no agreement for a redirect, and no support for a merge. One remark on the closer's conduct ( talk p). At first he falsely claimed that no argument had been made against redirection (cf. his similar misassessment of the Laodice AfD). Second, he believes that, absent a consensus for a redirect or merge, a page gets deleted by default. When I told him he was being inconsistent for not applying the same standard here, he refused to address the concern and dismissively ended the talk. Avilich ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2022 (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 closer gave no expanation for the closure. The vote was 4 keep and 4 delete, an explanation to the closure would be appreciated else it shouldn't be deleted -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:05, 2 March 2022 (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 closer gave no explanation for the closure. This AfD nomination concerns two articles. While some policy-based arguments were made for Maud Angelica's notability, none whatsoever were made for the notability of her younger sister Leah Isadora. Not a single editor attempted to demonstrate her having received significant coverage in reliable sources. If the keep !votes, which claim the sisters are notable for being the grandchildren of a king, are considered to have merit, it should be explained why because this fully contradicts WP:INVALIDBIO and ignores WP:BASIC. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |