This was a difficult debate to summarise and find consensus in due to the multi-faceted options and discussions occurring, I hope the above captures a rough consensus of practically how to move forward. I think a bigger and more general conversation about CSD G4 needs to happen given this discussion and other recent DRVs, but this is definitely not the venue for that. Daniel ( talk) 00:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
"Delete No sources for the article." is not a policy based argument when there is sources for the article. I provided 5 sources during the afd, pretending they don't exist does not negate them. Summarily dismissing coverage because it is not currently in the article is not a policy based argument. "this stub is just an essay" is meaningless to an afd. Notability is based on the existence of sufficient sourcing, not on their presence in the article or on their ease of access. AFDs are not head counts. Meaningless throw away close does nothing to explain why this was closed delete. (Bypassed discussion with the closing admin as they state on their talk page that they carefully consider their mistakes and one should go straight to other means such as here.) duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
hello! I have no idea to use wikipedia and I got my first article speedy deleted because someone thought I was paid to write the article which I was not. I am kindly asking for help if someone is able to just send me a copy of what I wrote. that is all I am asking for. my article was called draft:aya Atassi khanji . thank you. Nicole Perez-Krueger ( talk) 04:44, 28 December 2023 (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 disagree with the closer judgment; I believe I raised enough points in the discussion to bring serious doubt to this category's deletion, and "When in doubt, don't delete." Tl;dr at the bottom. I don't mean to repeat arguments from the discussion, but I believe that context is needed on this topic to decide on it fully. Geography is a big field, and the debate on how to subdivide and categorize its subdivisions has raged in outside literature for well over a century, and how it is done varies by culture and between individual geographers. As a geographer, I don't know if others know about the depth of this topic, but I feel the strong need to continue advocating for what I believe to be the best course of action and provide literature and rationale, even if many people disagree. If people are unwilling to change their minds, compromise, address the full scope of the organization problem, or propose alternative solutions based on sound literature, I don't know what is left. The Four traditions of geography are likely the most consistent and strongest supported method of dividing the discipline proposed in the past century, originating in the 1960s, a search on Google Scholar shows the original peer-reviewed publication has over 600 citations, with other well-cited papers on the topic existing. This topic is taught to geography undergrads, and the paper is required reading for many geography graduate programs in my anecdotal experience with two of them. The four traditions are not the only method for dividing geography; various methods have various levels of support in the literature. Another similar but different approach is Category:Branches of geography. Generally, the four traditions organize high-level theory and historical approaches to geography, while the branches are more "applied." While the word "branch" might sound good to someone, the use is inconsistent within the literature from my search. Ultimately, the best approach I could find was to use the organization methods from UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems and other literature to put together three well-supported "branches," however this is not the only possible approach. The book "The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies" by Timothy Tambassi is one of the best sources to understand this. Creation or deletion of high-level categories is something that should be approached very carefully to avoid being original research on the Ontology of Geography. After discussion and to remain consistent with other fields on Wikipedia, I created the category Category:Subfields of geography, which served as a container for these two different approaches to dividing geography, as a place a field that didn't fit either could be dumped or to place future categories for organizing geography based on literature. In my opinion, this created a defensible compromise between what the literature says and simplifying Wikipedia classification. Changing this high-level organization needs to be done with considerable thought and discussion. The category for the Four traditions was proposed for deletion and relisted twice without further discussion (other than my own comments trying to get more feedback) either time. While I tried to argue the points above, I don't believe they were considered. In response to feedback by editors in this, I created the Wikipedia page for the four traditions, and provided explanations for why they should be included. Reactions to the nomination, in addition to my opposition, were two calls for deletion and a comment that requested the page for the four traditions be created. Ultimately, the discussion involved, by my count four editors in addition to myself. One reason given to delete was that "This concept has been proved notable, but nobody has proved that it needs a category over other ways of subdividing the discipline of geography." The other methods of subdividing geography, however, have less consistent support in outside literature than the four traditions, which I pointed out but was never responded to. In deleting this category, the "Subfields of geography" category now only has "Branches of Geography." Branches are inadequate to take on all subfields; however, as that term is established in the literature, it has limitations and less support. Category:Human-Environment interaction, one of geographies four traditions, is now unconnected to the main geography category, and it is not clear how to link them in a way that is consistent with the literature. These points all need to be addressed in the discussion for deletion of the four traditions category, but that did not happen. tl;dr: Because of these reasons, I dispute the deletion of Category:Four traditions of geography based on disagreement with the closer's judgment. I discussed this on their talk page and was directed by them here. I believe that more voices were needed in the discussion, at the very least, and that deletion was done without fully considering/addressing the implications with an action plan to move forward based on policy and outside literature. I don't believe Wikipedia is a democracy, and that " Consensus is not determined by counting heads but by looking at the strength of argument and cited recorded consensus." While more discussion and thought may be needed, I don't believe a nominator and two in support of deletion are enough to establish a consensus against the amount of literature on the topic. Thank you for taking the time to read this; I understand that people don't like reading large bodies of text or replying to stuff after they have said their piece, but for consensus to really be reached and the status quo of how the pages are organized to change, I believe these issues need to be addressed and thought out. I know it may seem tedious, but if minority opinions don't speak up on topics, they risk being steamrolled by small groups of editors without a strong understanding of the topic. -- GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 20:03, 26 December 2023 (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 deleted per WP:G5 about 12 years ago and I cannot find any Cfd discussion at all either. Not sure if it applies here even but wanted permission to recreate as part of Category:Wheelchair tennis players. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no discussion for this deletion and, since then, Category:Wheelchair tennis players has grown and continues to grow, making this category necessary. The rationale no longer applies. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:29, 25 December 2023 (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 AFD was closed by Seraphimblade (who I note declares themself to be a 'deletionist') as 'delete'. I !voted 'keep', and think (naturally) that the close was bad. Whilst NOTAVOTE, it was 7 keep to 6 delete. At best it should have been 'no consensus'. However, I have neither the time nor energy to fight over that (although if others do...) - instead, I have requested that Seraphimblade restore the article and draftify it, so that further sources can be found and the article improved, although they have refused to do so. Accordingly, I request that the article is draftified as an ATD. Giant Snowman 12:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised and intrigued to find that experienced Wikipedians differ so much on a point that seems so foundational to how we make decisions.—
S Marshall
T/
C 10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
As mentioned in my AfD nom, this person doesn't have any form of WP:SIGCOV. In fact, no facts are alleged about him except that: he was at one point the head of Popular Resistance Committees and that he was killed in Oct 2023. I tried discussing this with the deleting admin twice [19] [20] but they didn't respond to me (to be fair they seem really busy). As I mentioned in my AfD, even the article Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal wouldn't meet WP:GNG, so deleting this article (not changing its name) is the only option. Two of the !votes didn't even address the SIGCOV argument. One !vote claimed there was SIGCOV while providing a single link the subject's own organization (therefore not an WP:INDEPENDENT source) that also doesn't provide SIGCOV. VR talk 20:04, 22 December 2023 (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 company was voted as the best place to work in the UAE and best workplace in the UAE for women. Plenty of credible sources for century financial. it was speedily deleted though the content was new. Francisjk2020 ( talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) -->
As requested here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 ( Francisjk2020 ( talk) 04:11, 21 December 2023 (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 deletion discussion took place in 2009. Since then, this dog has become increasingly notable, including having a standard, [1] gaining full AKC recognition in 2021, [2] and garnering mention in several books and scholarly articles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] While I definitely don't think we should restore the original Biewer Terrier article that was deleted in 2009 as it was not of suitable quality, if the article was to be recreated, I propose we restore [ this version]. With some cleanup and the addition of the sources I mentioned, I think notability would be demonstrated. The biggest issue that I forsee is that some publications consider them a subtype of the Yorkshire terrier, a similar issue to the Phalène, which the FCI recognizes as a separate breed from the Papillon dog but the AKC does not. Annwfwn ( talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (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. |
Requesting undeletion to add new citations and continue editing the article to remove any biographical content disputed as promotion. Complete deletion removed the subject from this list: /info/en/?search=List_of_vibraphonists This is inconsistent with other such lists (see book “Masters of the Vibes” in references). Editors voting for deletion did not seem to do substantial research on the specific topic (vibraphone and its musical sub-genre). Arguments regarding notability are arbitrary and inconsistent based upon other similar entries that remain undeleted, particularly since the original article meets all of the following criteria: - Multiple articles covering the music or a tour - Albums or singles in the official charts - Prominence within a certain genre or subculture - Award or competition wins or nominations - The music featured in another form of media, eg. TV shows, movies, games - Worked with other famous figures - Performed at major festivals or well-known venues Wiki editors failed to discover any of these 26 new citations:
Original citations:
|
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 majority proposed deletion, but most of the reasons do not seem valid ( WP:DEL#REASON): Never heard of, Russia is no longer emerging economically, overlap with other terms. The only reasons that seem valid are:
I don't have a strong opinion towards keeping the article, but I believe as new information emerged, the discussion should better be relisted instead of being directly closed as delete -- 94rain Talk 02:08, 14 December 2023 (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 closure seems a bit hasty and involved. Personally I see no reason to close an AFD less then 6 hours after it began. 166.199.98.17 ( talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (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 article was purged along with most other identity categories in 2007. In the original discussion, many reasons were brought up to keep it, yet it was deleted. Also see this, this, this, and this. I hope in good faith we can keep this category this time around. Frigyes06 ( talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (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 do not feel that consensus was totally against keeping the page. Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I commented on this DRV to observe that the closure did not prevent merging or converting the article, or fixing any copyvios. I don't consider that to make me involved enough to be ineligible to close this especially when the closure is a week overdue, but if any other uninvolved admin feels that my closure was inappropriate, they are free to revert and close as they see fit. Stifle ( talk) 09:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Reluctant to open a DRV but no response from closer on talk [22]. There was clear consensus to do something here. 4 delete !votes, 2 others suggested conversion to disambiguation, and 2 keeps, (1 of which was "keep or merge" and the other was "keep and convert to SETINDEX"). A simple "The result was no consensus" keeps a page by default that no one unequivocally thought should be kept. The article is new, and delete arguments that it failed LISTN were unanswered. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (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 thought of bring back the list of List of number-one digital songs of 2023 (Canada) because I feel there was more differences with the List of Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles of 2023 compared to the others years then you can verify via archived copies on the Wayback Machine. -- Sd-100 ( talk) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (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. |
Large majority of pages in category are about deaths of fraternity brothers and sorority sisters. If changed to siblicide these would need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (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 article was deleted on the basis of only having one review. There are two reviews, one from Chitraloka.com [23] and one from Indiainfo.com [24]. There is also a production source [25]. Request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft so that it can be expanded. DareshMohan ( talk) 03:27, 3 December 2023 (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 deleted on the basis that no sources exist. There is a review from indiainfo.com [26], a production source [27] and a release source [28] (first half about this film in Kannada). @ Pichpich:, you participated in the AfD but thought that sources may exist. How are these three sources? Request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft. DareshMohan ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2023 (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 am the nom, I do not ordinarily dispute AfD conclusions but I feel like this was a bad close. Just on !vote counts there was 1 delete (me) 1 redirect and 1 keep - the others were unhelpful "per username" !votes. Regarding policy, the !keep vote made a policy argument which I disputed, so there was not consensus. In my opinion there should have been a relist or two, and there should have been an opportunity for other experienced editors to examine the !keep policy argument (which I believe is novel), to do source analysis and to discuss other possible redirect or merge targets. JMWt ( talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This was a difficult debate to summarise and find consensus in due to the multi-faceted options and discussions occurring, I hope the above captures a rough consensus of practically how to move forward. I think a bigger and more general conversation about CSD G4 needs to happen given this discussion and other recent DRVs, but this is definitely not the venue for that. Daniel ( talk) 00:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
"Delete No sources for the article." is not a policy based argument when there is sources for the article. I provided 5 sources during the afd, pretending they don't exist does not negate them. Summarily dismissing coverage because it is not currently in the article is not a policy based argument. "this stub is just an essay" is meaningless to an afd. Notability is based on the existence of sufficient sourcing, not on their presence in the article or on their ease of access. AFDs are not head counts. Meaningless throw away close does nothing to explain why this was closed delete. (Bypassed discussion with the closing admin as they state on their talk page that they carefully consider their mistakes and one should go straight to other means such as here.) duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
hello! I have no idea to use wikipedia and I got my first article speedy deleted because someone thought I was paid to write the article which I was not. I am kindly asking for help if someone is able to just send me a copy of what I wrote. that is all I am asking for. my article was called draft:aya Atassi khanji . thank you. Nicole Perez-Krueger ( talk) 04:44, 28 December 2023 (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 disagree with the closer judgment; I believe I raised enough points in the discussion to bring serious doubt to this category's deletion, and "When in doubt, don't delete." Tl;dr at the bottom. I don't mean to repeat arguments from the discussion, but I believe that context is needed on this topic to decide on it fully. Geography is a big field, and the debate on how to subdivide and categorize its subdivisions has raged in outside literature for well over a century, and how it is done varies by culture and between individual geographers. As a geographer, I don't know if others know about the depth of this topic, but I feel the strong need to continue advocating for what I believe to be the best course of action and provide literature and rationale, even if many people disagree. If people are unwilling to change their minds, compromise, address the full scope of the organization problem, or propose alternative solutions based on sound literature, I don't know what is left. The Four traditions of geography are likely the most consistent and strongest supported method of dividing the discipline proposed in the past century, originating in the 1960s, a search on Google Scholar shows the original peer-reviewed publication has over 600 citations, with other well-cited papers on the topic existing. This topic is taught to geography undergrads, and the paper is required reading for many geography graduate programs in my anecdotal experience with two of them. The four traditions are not the only method for dividing geography; various methods have various levels of support in the literature. Another similar but different approach is Category:Branches of geography. Generally, the four traditions organize high-level theory and historical approaches to geography, while the branches are more "applied." While the word "branch" might sound good to someone, the use is inconsistent within the literature from my search. Ultimately, the best approach I could find was to use the organization methods from UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems and other literature to put together three well-supported "branches," however this is not the only possible approach. The book "The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies" by Timothy Tambassi is one of the best sources to understand this. Creation or deletion of high-level categories is something that should be approached very carefully to avoid being original research on the Ontology of Geography. After discussion and to remain consistent with other fields on Wikipedia, I created the category Category:Subfields of geography, which served as a container for these two different approaches to dividing geography, as a place a field that didn't fit either could be dumped or to place future categories for organizing geography based on literature. In my opinion, this created a defensible compromise between what the literature says and simplifying Wikipedia classification. Changing this high-level organization needs to be done with considerable thought and discussion. The category for the Four traditions was proposed for deletion and relisted twice without further discussion (other than my own comments trying to get more feedback) either time. While I tried to argue the points above, I don't believe they were considered. In response to feedback by editors in this, I created the Wikipedia page for the four traditions, and provided explanations for why they should be included. Reactions to the nomination, in addition to my opposition, were two calls for deletion and a comment that requested the page for the four traditions be created. Ultimately, the discussion involved, by my count four editors in addition to myself. One reason given to delete was that "This concept has been proved notable, but nobody has proved that it needs a category over other ways of subdividing the discipline of geography." The other methods of subdividing geography, however, have less consistent support in outside literature than the four traditions, which I pointed out but was never responded to. In deleting this category, the "Subfields of geography" category now only has "Branches of Geography." Branches are inadequate to take on all subfields; however, as that term is established in the literature, it has limitations and less support. Category:Human-Environment interaction, one of geographies four traditions, is now unconnected to the main geography category, and it is not clear how to link them in a way that is consistent with the literature. These points all need to be addressed in the discussion for deletion of the four traditions category, but that did not happen. tl;dr: Because of these reasons, I dispute the deletion of Category:Four traditions of geography based on disagreement with the closer's judgment. I discussed this on their talk page and was directed by them here. I believe that more voices were needed in the discussion, at the very least, and that deletion was done without fully considering/addressing the implications with an action plan to move forward based on policy and outside literature. I don't believe Wikipedia is a democracy, and that " Consensus is not determined by counting heads but by looking at the strength of argument and cited recorded consensus." While more discussion and thought may be needed, I don't believe a nominator and two in support of deletion are enough to establish a consensus against the amount of literature on the topic. Thank you for taking the time to read this; I understand that people don't like reading large bodies of text or replying to stuff after they have said their piece, but for consensus to really be reached and the status quo of how the pages are organized to change, I believe these issues need to be addressed and thought out. I know it may seem tedious, but if minority opinions don't speak up on topics, they risk being steamrolled by small groups of editors without a strong understanding of the topic. -- GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 20:03, 26 December 2023 (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 deleted per WP:G5 about 12 years ago and I cannot find any Cfd discussion at all either. Not sure if it applies here even but wanted permission to recreate as part of Category:Wheelchair tennis players. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no discussion for this deletion and, since then, Category:Wheelchair tennis players has grown and continues to grow, making this category necessary. The rationale no longer applies. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:29, 25 December 2023 (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 AFD was closed by Seraphimblade (who I note declares themself to be a 'deletionist') as 'delete'. I !voted 'keep', and think (naturally) that the close was bad. Whilst NOTAVOTE, it was 7 keep to 6 delete. At best it should have been 'no consensus'. However, I have neither the time nor energy to fight over that (although if others do...) - instead, I have requested that Seraphimblade restore the article and draftify it, so that further sources can be found and the article improved, although they have refused to do so. Accordingly, I request that the article is draftified as an ATD. Giant Snowman 12:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised and intrigued to find that experienced Wikipedians differ so much on a point that seems so foundational to how we make decisions.—
S Marshall
T/
C 10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
As mentioned in my AfD nom, this person doesn't have any form of WP:SIGCOV. In fact, no facts are alleged about him except that: he was at one point the head of Popular Resistance Committees and that he was killed in Oct 2023. I tried discussing this with the deleting admin twice [19] [20] but they didn't respond to me (to be fair they seem really busy). As I mentioned in my AfD, even the article Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal wouldn't meet WP:GNG, so deleting this article (not changing its name) is the only option. Two of the !votes didn't even address the SIGCOV argument. One !vote claimed there was SIGCOV while providing a single link the subject's own organization (therefore not an WP:INDEPENDENT source) that also doesn't provide SIGCOV. VR talk 20:04, 22 December 2023 (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 company was voted as the best place to work in the UAE and best workplace in the UAE for women. Plenty of credible sources for century financial. it was speedily deleted though the content was new. Francisjk2020 ( talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) -->
As requested here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 ( Francisjk2020 ( talk) 04:11, 21 December 2023 (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 deletion discussion took place in 2009. Since then, this dog has become increasingly notable, including having a standard, [1] gaining full AKC recognition in 2021, [2] and garnering mention in several books and scholarly articles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] While I definitely don't think we should restore the original Biewer Terrier article that was deleted in 2009 as it was not of suitable quality, if the article was to be recreated, I propose we restore [ this version]. With some cleanup and the addition of the sources I mentioned, I think notability would be demonstrated. The biggest issue that I forsee is that some publications consider them a subtype of the Yorkshire terrier, a similar issue to the Phalène, which the FCI recognizes as a separate breed from the Papillon dog but the AKC does not. Annwfwn ( talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (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. |
Requesting undeletion to add new citations and continue editing the article to remove any biographical content disputed as promotion. Complete deletion removed the subject from this list: /info/en/?search=List_of_vibraphonists This is inconsistent with other such lists (see book “Masters of the Vibes” in references). Editors voting for deletion did not seem to do substantial research on the specific topic (vibraphone and its musical sub-genre). Arguments regarding notability are arbitrary and inconsistent based upon other similar entries that remain undeleted, particularly since the original article meets all of the following criteria: - Multiple articles covering the music or a tour - Albums or singles in the official charts - Prominence within a certain genre or subculture - Award or competition wins or nominations - The music featured in another form of media, eg. TV shows, movies, games - Worked with other famous figures - Performed at major festivals or well-known venues Wiki editors failed to discover any of these 26 new citations:
Original citations:
|
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 majority proposed deletion, but most of the reasons do not seem valid ( WP:DEL#REASON): Never heard of, Russia is no longer emerging economically, overlap with other terms. The only reasons that seem valid are:
I don't have a strong opinion towards keeping the article, but I believe as new information emerged, the discussion should better be relisted instead of being directly closed as delete -- 94rain Talk 02:08, 14 December 2023 (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 closure seems a bit hasty and involved. Personally I see no reason to close an AFD less then 6 hours after it began. 166.199.98.17 ( talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (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 article was purged along with most other identity categories in 2007. In the original discussion, many reasons were brought up to keep it, yet it was deleted. Also see this, this, this, and this. I hope in good faith we can keep this category this time around. Frigyes06 ( talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (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 do not feel that consensus was totally against keeping the page. Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I commented on this DRV to observe that the closure did not prevent merging or converting the article, or fixing any copyvios. I don't consider that to make me involved enough to be ineligible to close this especially when the closure is a week overdue, but if any other uninvolved admin feels that my closure was inappropriate, they are free to revert and close as they see fit. Stifle ( talk) 09:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Reluctant to open a DRV but no response from closer on talk [22]. There was clear consensus to do something here. 4 delete !votes, 2 others suggested conversion to disambiguation, and 2 keeps, (1 of which was "keep or merge" and the other was "keep and convert to SETINDEX"). A simple "The result was no consensus" keeps a page by default that no one unequivocally thought should be kept. The article is new, and delete arguments that it failed LISTN were unanswered. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (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 thought of bring back the list of List of number-one digital songs of 2023 (Canada) because I feel there was more differences with the List of Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles of 2023 compared to the others years then you can verify via archived copies on the Wayback Machine. -- Sd-100 ( talk) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (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. |
Large majority of pages in category are about deaths of fraternity brothers and sorority sisters. If changed to siblicide these would need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (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 article was deleted on the basis of only having one review. There are two reviews, one from Chitraloka.com [23] and one from Indiainfo.com [24]. There is also a production source [25]. Request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft so that it can be expanded. DareshMohan ( talk) 03:27, 3 December 2023 (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 deleted on the basis that no sources exist. There is a review from indiainfo.com [26], a production source [27] and a release source [28] (first half about this film in Kannada). @ Pichpich:, you participated in the AfD but thought that sources may exist. How are these three sources? Request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft. DareshMohan ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2023 (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 am the nom, I do not ordinarily dispute AfD conclusions but I feel like this was a bad close. Just on !vote counts there was 1 delete (me) 1 redirect and 1 keep - the others were unhelpful "per username" !votes. Regarding policy, the !keep vote made a policy argument which I disputed, so there was not consensus. In my opinion there should have been a relist or two, and there should have been an opportunity for other experienced editors to examine the !keep policy argument (which I believe is novel), to do source analysis and to discuss other possible redirect or merge targets. JMWt ( talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |