|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted for non-notability, but I just did a search and found several sources, such as Elite Daily, CelebWell, CNBC, Variety. She is also listed in Forbes Top Creators 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannaultheal ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (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 first two of these survived RfD and then were deleted out of process by an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV. The third was never previously discussed but the fact that the first two survived means its not uncontroversial. These deletions need to be undone. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I nominated these redirects for deletion as two out of them, if I recall well, were created (and the third one edited) by a user sanctioned for creating oodles useless redirects ( GabrielPenn4223 – see User talk). I admit I didn't check the nomination history, however I did check neighbouring dates and they did not exist, so speedy'ing these articles seemed a no-brainer. I still believe they are useless and they needlessly clutter the search box, and will be eventually deleted, but since Wikipedia is increasingly turning into a bureaucracy, I understand why some editors feel compelled to use their infinite free time and follow the recommended procedures to the dot. Note that I did not nominate the articles under G6 but under a custom rationale providing a detailed explanation; no idea why G6 was relied on, however those who have argued for an overturn based on the narrow scope of G6 might like to revisit the matter. — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 3 April 2024 (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 kept at MfD. Two years later an admin deleted it, asserting based on their own original research that it was not in fact a hoax. This is procedurally inappropriate as admins do not have the authority to unilaterally overrule deletion discussions and the page should be restored. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 30 March 2024 (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. |
Ms. Derek is an Emmy winner (and three-time nominee) [1] as well as a published author. She received significant press coverage around the time her memoir came out. [2] Her screenwriting filmography is extensive. I don't think this page should've been deleted when there are far less notable people with Wikipedia entries. Yours6700 ( talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (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 needlessly taken down due to a consesus being reached entirely composed of incredibly foolish & self contradictory logic. The very weak reasoning was that this would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, then the grand majority of information found on Wikipedia must also be removed, as that information is also constantly changing & its respective pages require heavy maintenance & consistent alteration to allow that information to be as accurate & up to date as possible. This list was factual information, an encyclopedia is where 1 is supposed to find factual information. Its suppression & removal from the encyclopedia is incredibly counterintuitive & calls to question the legitimacy of this platform, as all the information that should be easily accessible here is now for whatever reason doubted as having a place in an encyclopedia. The 2018 RfC should also not be invoked as reasoning to supress these articles, as that too was plagued with falsehoods & very weak & ill-informed rationale. This list was never in any violation of any Wikipedia guideline & should instantly be fully reinstated permanently immediately without question. Its suppression calls to question Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia where information of all sorts is supposed to be easily accessible. That some readers may find this information irrelevant is not a reason to suppress this information, nor deprive other readers of this information who may find it useful for a variety of purposes. Readers who belive this is irrelevent to them should simply disregard it, but not call for its needless removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a ( talk • contribs)
|
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 not enough time to allow for more reasoning to be voiced in support of keeping this information up. The arguments in favor of deletion were plagued entirely with pure falsehoods, such as false claims that this list was in violation of various Wikipedia guidelines, & falsely claimed that this information requiring maintenance establishes Wikipedia as a newsfeed. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia meant to house a variety of information, & airline destinations, former, current & planned, should be among the pieces of that should have a permanent home here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The last deletion discussion is over ten years old, and in that time Redban has continued podcast hosting and publishing, and is now the part-owner of the Sunset Strip Comedy Club. There are many sources covering his more recent works. (The previous closing admin has been inactive several years so I won't notify them.) SmolBrane ( talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (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 non-admin closure by Coookiemonster mentioning "No consensus has been made for the aforementioned areas, and given that there has been extensive discussion over two weeks and that no more votes have occurred in the past few days, a second RELIST will likely be a waste of time." is not reasonable. The right call would have been to relist the AfD for the 2nd time to get more policy based arguments, but instead, Coookiemonster closed it too soon. The article on Justin Jin has received over 800 views with a daily average of 40+, which is significant traction considering it doesn't appear as the first hit in a Google search. I believe many other editors would have placed their arguments if it were relisted. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (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 person who originally created the article, as I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and work in media, and I also edited it with over 20 sources following the notice of deletion. Master Shi Xing Mi has hundreds of international sources, from prestigious publications such as Forbes and NYP, to government institutions and large international corporations. He is the most quoted and published Shaolin Master globally, with 4 books published by the likes of Random House and Mondadori, as well as the Co-Founder of two international wellness and fitness companies with hundreds of employees. Despite providing over 20 such sources in the Wikipedia article, as well as hundreds more being available to anyone with just a single Google search, a Wikipedia moderator deleted it citing "no independent sources". Without being sarcastic, I don't think Master Shi Xing Mi owns dozens of top international magazines and newspapers, global book editors, government institution and many other such sources. They are clearly impeccable independent sources. The deletion is thus completely unfounded and arbitrary; furthermore, there are dozens of Wikipedia pages about living people who comparatively have a miniscule number of sources, yet are considered compliant. Oddly, Shi Xing Mi's own Master, Shi De Yang, has 1 (one) source which is his own website, yet it's considered acceptable. Shi Xing Mi, who by the way is mentioned in Shi De Yang's Wikipedia page, has hundreds of sources but is not acceptable. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.71.123 ( talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
AfD discussion focused on notability and ignored that the page is supported by 0 independent sources. Furthermore, significant contributions were made to the page by a since banned COI editor. Though sufficiently notable, the page should be deleted per WP:TNT in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk • contribs) This can be considered withdrawn by nominator IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 00:49, 27 March 2024 (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. |
unsupported and inaccurate Paczkowski continues to be very well known and a wildly important journalist. He's interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook and broken all manner of news about Apple and other big tech companies. His reporters have won pretty much every award in the business (Livingston, Polk, Pulitzer, Mirror, SABEW). He's completely resurrected Forbes tech reporting, which has led the industry on TikTok reporting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/11/28/tiktoks-china-problem/?sh=550c549c1ee4 Announcement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2022/05/26/forbes-names-john-paczkowski-executive-editor-of-innovation-and-technology/?sh=218988244539 Buzzfeed Archive: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/author/johnpaczkowski Record Kara Swisher announcing Paczkowki's column: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/11626138/john-paczkowskis-back-with-daily-codered-column-on-recode Paczkowki's allthingsD archive. He was Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg's first editorial hire: https://allthingsd.com/author/john/index.html Tim Cook interview: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/twenty-minutes-with-tim-cook AirPods scoop: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack#
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the administrator wrongfully considered that a consensus had been reached. Below are the reasons:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I was reading up on the 2024 Indian general election and going through the Wikipedia maze of articles when I discovered that Annamalai does not have an article on Wikipedia. What was even more puzzling to me was that some other unknown Annamalai had a page, but the known Annamalai didn't have one. So I decided to investigate and tried to go through the entire history of the K. Annamalai page and all the disputes and discussions about the notability of the guy who is currently detailed, versus the guy who is not. I completely understand how the arguments brought forth by other Wikipedia editors could seem misleading to pretty much anyone who isn't from Tamil Nadu. As someone with a hopeful half-decent understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and as someone from Tamil Nadu, I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy. In the context of Tamil Nadu politics, there are two people known by the same name, K. Annamalai. The obvious differentiating factor betweem the two is the party that each Annamalai belongs to. One belongs to the AIADMK party while the other belongs to the BJP. So let me use acronyms to refer to each Annamalai; AKA - AIADMK K. Annamalai and BKA - BJP K. Annamalai. Currently, the page K. Annamalai is being used to represent AKA, but I believe it should be used to represent BKA. I will first attempt to debunk the notability of AKA and then attempt to prove the notability of BKA. Taking a look at WP:POLITICIAN, it does says that "Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office" are notable. However it also says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". As someone from Tamil Nadu, it is very obvious to me that AKA falls under the latter criterion. But if I have to attempt to prove this to someone on the web who isn't from Tamil Nadu, the argument I have is that I cannot find a single news article written on AKA on the entire web. I'm not even sure if it's possible to find news articles on AKA because even searching for "AIADMK K. Annamalai" on the web only yields results about BKA. AKA is someone who held office more than 20 years back, but is completely irrelevant now because not only has no one heard of him in a long time, but even if anyone wants to read and find out about him, there is absolutely no way to. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong if anyone can bring up the link to even a single news article written about AKA. Now onto BKA. Before I attempt to prove BKA's notability, I need to state that I've gone through the history of the numerous attempts by a lot of editors to create the article on BKA. And after going through them, I will unequivocally acknowledge that all of the articles written previously were in almost complete violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. It appears there are 3 times that articles on BKA have been deleted on consensus after discussion
I agree with the consensus reached for all 3 deletions for those times. But BKA did start becoming notable at a certain point. But it's not easy for me to clearly define when exactly he became notable. However I certainly believe that BKA now falls under the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN as of today, and certainly deserves the page K. Annamalai more than AKA. At the very least, the current page on AKA as it stands right now must be deleted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, so that people who're visiting the page expecting to read about BKA do not get confused, and assume that Wikipedia has incorrect information. Nirinsanity ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This is complicated. The article is about the media coverage of the supposed disappearance of a member of the British royal family, who later reappeared and announced she had cancer. The first AfD, contested here, was closed as "keep". During this DRV, someone started a second AfD at 19:16, 22 March 2024, which was procedurally closed at 23:28, 22 March 2024 with reference to this ongoing review. That second AfD's closure is now also contested here. In this DRV, a majority of editors endorse the first AfD's "keep" closure. A minority argue for reopening the second AfD because they believe that events subsequent to the media frenzy caused by the "disappearance" - i.e., the announcement of the cancer diagnosis - should be considered in Wikipedia's treatment of the topic in the light of WP:BLP. Whether that is so is for the editorial process to determine. As DRV closer, I can only conclude that there is no consensus to relist either the first or the second AfD, and so the closures of both discussions remain in force. While it is now technically possible to open a third AfD, my personal recommendation is to first try to use the article talk page to find editorial consensus for any adjustments to the title or scope of the article, including possibly a merger, that people may consider appropriate. The issues discussed here are fundamentally a matter of editorial judgment, to which the binary nature of the deletion process may not be optimally suited. Sandstein 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Insufficient weight given to WP:BLP concerns compared to a !vote up / down count. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Endorse per previous comments. Skyshifter talk 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Closer's comment I just wanted to drop by to acknowledge I am aware of the discussion here, and continue to stand by my close. Thanks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:14, 22 March 2024 (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. |
Much as with the Bit (unit), this is a plausible Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation, and as such not eligible for WP:R3, it is likewise ineligible for WP:G14 which it was also deleted as, and instead should have been discussed at WP:RFD if deletion was thought appropriate. Request for undeletion has gone unanswered after two weeks which I believe is a reasonable wait period, as such I'm bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5E4:48BE:836F:9F61 ( talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (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 subject Sapna Choudhary · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [ revisions and its AfC have been deleted several times citing WP:G11, whereas the recent AfC submitted by me maintained WP:NPOV and contained nothing that could be considered advertising or promotional. Furthermore, the 2nd AfD discussion was not well-contested, and the 1st AfD discussion, nominated in 2017 for AfD under WP:G11, saw experienced editors voting in favor of deletion, with comments such as WP:TOOSOON. It may be possible that in 2017, the subject was not covered in depth by third-party reliable sources, but now in 2024, it is well-covered in multiple secondary reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Additionally, the subject is already available on different projects of Wikipedia (in Hindi) and five other languages, further making it eligible for WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. LearnologyX ( talk) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (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 improved the article and it was accepted by ::@ Geardona, Please review the agreement on my talk page The dogcat ( talk) 02:12, 18 March 2024 (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. |
Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (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. |
She has attained WP:NACTOR with her roles in tv shows, films, web-series and music videos. She was the 2nd runner-up in the Indian popular reality show Big Boss (Season 16) which makes it fit to create an article for her.
|
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. |
So this is a my first time doing this so tell me if im wrong, but the article (prior version) Draft:K. Annamalai was deleted, and the outcome was endorsed. As a draft has been re-created, an endorsement of the draft is required from DRV (if I understand correctly). So, endorse re-creation of draft or no? Geardona ( talk to me?) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
No clear consensus reached, but a few editors made excellent points, I believe this should be relisted one more time and reviewed 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 05:09, 10 March 2024 (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 only 'Keep' !vote was from an obvious SPA COI account - MarkusSchulze - the same Markus Schulze after whom the article is named. This !vote should have been stricken out, or at least discarded, leaving just the nom and my Redirect views, either of which would have been preferable to the No consensus non-admin close. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 7 March 2024 (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. |
Wrong assessment. Majority was "Delete", however, further reading would show that it was "delete" in terms of it not being a cover and it being used in the "cover" parameter, not that the images themselves needed "deletion". This even was stated by the nominator, who withdrew their !vote after the issue was fixed and this was stated as well by other editors, who focused on the images not being covers (i.e. not in a "cover=" parameter) and not that the images needed deleted. I request a reassessment of present !votes from that discussion. From a personal assessment, I see 2 Keep !votes, 1 true "Delete" !vote, 1 half true "delete"/half "parameter delete" and 3 "parameter delete" !votes. There is no full consensus at all for straight deletion. In fact, since the 3 "parameter delete" !vote are not in support of a true deletion, there would be a consensus to keep the file. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:12, 7 March 2024 (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. |
User:Fhektii recently created an account, performed almost 200 edits in 2 days focused entirely on nominating articles for AfD and tagging {{coi}} on random articles, and then was indefinitely banned. I am concerned about drive-by nominations. Particularly
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richman where the reason given is
|
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. |
We kindly request the community reconsider the deletion of the Sills Cummis Wikipedia page. Per the [ notability guidelines], “Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published – even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet….” Therefore, for your consideration, below are additional published articles about/involving Sills Cummis that we believe establish the Firm’s notability per Wikipedia standards. • https://njbiz.com/sills-cummis-expands-price-gouging-practice/ • https://njbmagazine.com/monthly-articles/newark-celebrates-350-years/ • https://www.law360.com/articles/552814/new-jersey-powerhouse-sills-cummis-gross • https://www.nj.com/business/2011/01/nj_wineries_will_go_to_court_t.html • https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/20/realestate/marcos-holdings-shedding-web-of-intrigue.html?searchResultPosition=56 Gdavis22 ( talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (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. |
Deleted for non-notability, but I just did a search and found several sources, such as Elite Daily, CelebWell, CNBC, Variety. She is also listed in Forbes Top Creators 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannaultheal ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (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 first two of these survived RfD and then were deleted out of process by an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV. The third was never previously discussed but the fact that the first two survived means its not uncontroversial. These deletions need to be undone. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I nominated these redirects for deletion as two out of them, if I recall well, were created (and the third one edited) by a user sanctioned for creating oodles useless redirects ( GabrielPenn4223 – see User talk). I admit I didn't check the nomination history, however I did check neighbouring dates and they did not exist, so speedy'ing these articles seemed a no-brainer. I still believe they are useless and they needlessly clutter the search box, and will be eventually deleted, but since Wikipedia is increasingly turning into a bureaucracy, I understand why some editors feel compelled to use their infinite free time and follow the recommended procedures to the dot. Note that I did not nominate the articles under G6 but under a custom rationale providing a detailed explanation; no idea why G6 was relied on, however those who have argued for an overturn based on the narrow scope of G6 might like to revisit the matter. — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 3 April 2024 (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 kept at MfD. Two years later an admin deleted it, asserting based on their own original research that it was not in fact a hoax. This is procedurally inappropriate as admins do not have the authority to unilaterally overrule deletion discussions and the page should be restored. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 30 March 2024 (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. |
Ms. Derek is an Emmy winner (and three-time nominee) [1] as well as a published author. She received significant press coverage around the time her memoir came out. [2] Her screenwriting filmography is extensive. I don't think this page should've been deleted when there are far less notable people with Wikipedia entries. Yours6700 ( talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (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 needlessly taken down due to a consesus being reached entirely composed of incredibly foolish & self contradictory logic. The very weak reasoning was that this would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, then the grand majority of information found on Wikipedia must also be removed, as that information is also constantly changing & its respective pages require heavy maintenance & consistent alteration to allow that information to be as accurate & up to date as possible. This list was factual information, an encyclopedia is where 1 is supposed to find factual information. Its suppression & removal from the encyclopedia is incredibly counterintuitive & calls to question the legitimacy of this platform, as all the information that should be easily accessible here is now for whatever reason doubted as having a place in an encyclopedia. The 2018 RfC should also not be invoked as reasoning to supress these articles, as that too was plagued with falsehoods & very weak & ill-informed rationale. This list was never in any violation of any Wikipedia guideline & should instantly be fully reinstated permanently immediately without question. Its suppression calls to question Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia where information of all sorts is supposed to be easily accessible. That some readers may find this information irrelevant is not a reason to suppress this information, nor deprive other readers of this information who may find it useful for a variety of purposes. Readers who belive this is irrelevent to them should simply disregard it, but not call for its needless removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a ( talk • contribs)
|
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 not enough time to allow for more reasoning to be voiced in support of keeping this information up. The arguments in favor of deletion were plagued entirely with pure falsehoods, such as false claims that this list was in violation of various Wikipedia guidelines, & falsely claimed that this information requiring maintenance establishes Wikipedia as a newsfeed. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia meant to house a variety of information, & airline destinations, former, current & planned, should be among the pieces of that should have a permanent home here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The last deletion discussion is over ten years old, and in that time Redban has continued podcast hosting and publishing, and is now the part-owner of the Sunset Strip Comedy Club. There are many sources covering his more recent works. (The previous closing admin has been inactive several years so I won't notify them.) SmolBrane ( talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (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 non-admin closure by Coookiemonster mentioning "No consensus has been made for the aforementioned areas, and given that there has been extensive discussion over two weeks and that no more votes have occurred in the past few days, a second RELIST will likely be a waste of time." is not reasonable. The right call would have been to relist the AfD for the 2nd time to get more policy based arguments, but instead, Coookiemonster closed it too soon. The article on Justin Jin has received over 800 views with a daily average of 40+, which is significant traction considering it doesn't appear as the first hit in a Google search. I believe many other editors would have placed their arguments if it were relisted. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (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 person who originally created the article, as I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and work in media, and I also edited it with over 20 sources following the notice of deletion. Master Shi Xing Mi has hundreds of international sources, from prestigious publications such as Forbes and NYP, to government institutions and large international corporations. He is the most quoted and published Shaolin Master globally, with 4 books published by the likes of Random House and Mondadori, as well as the Co-Founder of two international wellness and fitness companies with hundreds of employees. Despite providing over 20 such sources in the Wikipedia article, as well as hundreds more being available to anyone with just a single Google search, a Wikipedia moderator deleted it citing "no independent sources". Without being sarcastic, I don't think Master Shi Xing Mi owns dozens of top international magazines and newspapers, global book editors, government institution and many other such sources. They are clearly impeccable independent sources. The deletion is thus completely unfounded and arbitrary; furthermore, there are dozens of Wikipedia pages about living people who comparatively have a miniscule number of sources, yet are considered compliant. Oddly, Shi Xing Mi's own Master, Shi De Yang, has 1 (one) source which is his own website, yet it's considered acceptable. Shi Xing Mi, who by the way is mentioned in Shi De Yang's Wikipedia page, has hundreds of sources but is not acceptable. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.71.123 ( talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
AfD discussion focused on notability and ignored that the page is supported by 0 independent sources. Furthermore, significant contributions were made to the page by a since banned COI editor. Though sufficiently notable, the page should be deleted per WP:TNT in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk • contribs) This can be considered withdrawn by nominator IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 00:49, 27 March 2024 (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. |
unsupported and inaccurate Paczkowski continues to be very well known and a wildly important journalist. He's interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook and broken all manner of news about Apple and other big tech companies. His reporters have won pretty much every award in the business (Livingston, Polk, Pulitzer, Mirror, SABEW). He's completely resurrected Forbes tech reporting, which has led the industry on TikTok reporting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/11/28/tiktoks-china-problem/?sh=550c549c1ee4 Announcement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2022/05/26/forbes-names-john-paczkowski-executive-editor-of-innovation-and-technology/?sh=218988244539 Buzzfeed Archive: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/author/johnpaczkowski Record Kara Swisher announcing Paczkowki's column: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/11626138/john-paczkowskis-back-with-daily-codered-column-on-recode Paczkowki's allthingsD archive. He was Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg's first editorial hire: https://allthingsd.com/author/john/index.html Tim Cook interview: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/twenty-minutes-with-tim-cook AirPods scoop: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack#
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the administrator wrongfully considered that a consensus had been reached. Below are the reasons:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I was reading up on the 2024 Indian general election and going through the Wikipedia maze of articles when I discovered that Annamalai does not have an article on Wikipedia. What was even more puzzling to me was that some other unknown Annamalai had a page, but the known Annamalai didn't have one. So I decided to investigate and tried to go through the entire history of the K. Annamalai page and all the disputes and discussions about the notability of the guy who is currently detailed, versus the guy who is not. I completely understand how the arguments brought forth by other Wikipedia editors could seem misleading to pretty much anyone who isn't from Tamil Nadu. As someone with a hopeful half-decent understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and as someone from Tamil Nadu, I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy. In the context of Tamil Nadu politics, there are two people known by the same name, K. Annamalai. The obvious differentiating factor betweem the two is the party that each Annamalai belongs to. One belongs to the AIADMK party while the other belongs to the BJP. So let me use acronyms to refer to each Annamalai; AKA - AIADMK K. Annamalai and BKA - BJP K. Annamalai. Currently, the page K. Annamalai is being used to represent AKA, but I believe it should be used to represent BKA. I will first attempt to debunk the notability of AKA and then attempt to prove the notability of BKA. Taking a look at WP:POLITICIAN, it does says that "Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office" are notable. However it also says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". As someone from Tamil Nadu, it is very obvious to me that AKA falls under the latter criterion. But if I have to attempt to prove this to someone on the web who isn't from Tamil Nadu, the argument I have is that I cannot find a single news article written on AKA on the entire web. I'm not even sure if it's possible to find news articles on AKA because even searching for "AIADMK K. Annamalai" on the web only yields results about BKA. AKA is someone who held office more than 20 years back, but is completely irrelevant now because not only has no one heard of him in a long time, but even if anyone wants to read and find out about him, there is absolutely no way to. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong if anyone can bring up the link to even a single news article written about AKA. Now onto BKA. Before I attempt to prove BKA's notability, I need to state that I've gone through the history of the numerous attempts by a lot of editors to create the article on BKA. And after going through them, I will unequivocally acknowledge that all of the articles written previously were in almost complete violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. It appears there are 3 times that articles on BKA have been deleted on consensus after discussion
I agree with the consensus reached for all 3 deletions for those times. But BKA did start becoming notable at a certain point. But it's not easy for me to clearly define when exactly he became notable. However I certainly believe that BKA now falls under the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN as of today, and certainly deserves the page K. Annamalai more than AKA. At the very least, the current page on AKA as it stands right now must be deleted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, so that people who're visiting the page expecting to read about BKA do not get confused, and assume that Wikipedia has incorrect information. Nirinsanity ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This is complicated. The article is about the media coverage of the supposed disappearance of a member of the British royal family, who later reappeared and announced she had cancer. The first AfD, contested here, was closed as "keep". During this DRV, someone started a second AfD at 19:16, 22 March 2024, which was procedurally closed at 23:28, 22 March 2024 with reference to this ongoing review. That second AfD's closure is now also contested here. In this DRV, a majority of editors endorse the first AfD's "keep" closure. A minority argue for reopening the second AfD because they believe that events subsequent to the media frenzy caused by the "disappearance" - i.e., the announcement of the cancer diagnosis - should be considered in Wikipedia's treatment of the topic in the light of WP:BLP. Whether that is so is for the editorial process to determine. As DRV closer, I can only conclude that there is no consensus to relist either the first or the second AfD, and so the closures of both discussions remain in force. While it is now technically possible to open a third AfD, my personal recommendation is to first try to use the article talk page to find editorial consensus for any adjustments to the title or scope of the article, including possibly a merger, that people may consider appropriate. The issues discussed here are fundamentally a matter of editorial judgment, to which the binary nature of the deletion process may not be optimally suited. Sandstein 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Insufficient weight given to WP:BLP concerns compared to a !vote up / down count. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Endorse per previous comments. Skyshifter talk 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Closer's comment I just wanted to drop by to acknowledge I am aware of the discussion here, and continue to stand by my close. Thanks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:14, 22 March 2024 (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. |
Much as with the Bit (unit), this is a plausible Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation, and as such not eligible for WP:R3, it is likewise ineligible for WP:G14 which it was also deleted as, and instead should have been discussed at WP:RFD if deletion was thought appropriate. Request for undeletion has gone unanswered after two weeks which I believe is a reasonable wait period, as such I'm bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5E4:48BE:836F:9F61 ( talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (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 subject Sapna Choudhary · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [ revisions and its AfC have been deleted several times citing WP:G11, whereas the recent AfC submitted by me maintained WP:NPOV and contained nothing that could be considered advertising or promotional. Furthermore, the 2nd AfD discussion was not well-contested, and the 1st AfD discussion, nominated in 2017 for AfD under WP:G11, saw experienced editors voting in favor of deletion, with comments such as WP:TOOSOON. It may be possible that in 2017, the subject was not covered in depth by third-party reliable sources, but now in 2024, it is well-covered in multiple secondary reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Additionally, the subject is already available on different projects of Wikipedia (in Hindi) and five other languages, further making it eligible for WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. LearnologyX ( talk) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (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 improved the article and it was accepted by ::@ Geardona, Please review the agreement on my talk page The dogcat ( talk) 02:12, 18 March 2024 (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. |
Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (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. |
She has attained WP:NACTOR with her roles in tv shows, films, web-series and music videos. She was the 2nd runner-up in the Indian popular reality show Big Boss (Season 16) which makes it fit to create an article for her.
|
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. |
So this is a my first time doing this so tell me if im wrong, but the article (prior version) Draft:K. Annamalai was deleted, and the outcome was endorsed. As a draft has been re-created, an endorsement of the draft is required from DRV (if I understand correctly). So, endorse re-creation of draft or no? Geardona ( talk to me?) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
No clear consensus reached, but a few editors made excellent points, I believe this should be relisted one more time and reviewed 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 05:09, 10 March 2024 (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 only 'Keep' !vote was from an obvious SPA COI account - MarkusSchulze - the same Markus Schulze after whom the article is named. This !vote should have been stricken out, or at least discarded, leaving just the nom and my Redirect views, either of which would have been preferable to the No consensus non-admin close. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 7 March 2024 (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. |
Wrong assessment. Majority was "Delete", however, further reading would show that it was "delete" in terms of it not being a cover and it being used in the "cover" parameter, not that the images themselves needed "deletion". This even was stated by the nominator, who withdrew their !vote after the issue was fixed and this was stated as well by other editors, who focused on the images not being covers (i.e. not in a "cover=" parameter) and not that the images needed deleted. I request a reassessment of present !votes from that discussion. From a personal assessment, I see 2 Keep !votes, 1 true "Delete" !vote, 1 half true "delete"/half "parameter delete" and 3 "parameter delete" !votes. There is no full consensus at all for straight deletion. In fact, since the 3 "parameter delete" !vote are not in support of a true deletion, there would be a consensus to keep the file. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:12, 7 March 2024 (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. |
User:Fhektii recently created an account, performed almost 200 edits in 2 days focused entirely on nominating articles for AfD and tagging {{coi}} on random articles, and then was indefinitely banned. I am concerned about drive-by nominations. Particularly
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richman where the reason given is
|
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. |
We kindly request the community reconsider the deletion of the Sills Cummis Wikipedia page. Per the [ notability guidelines], “Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published – even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet….” Therefore, for your consideration, below are additional published articles about/involving Sills Cummis that we believe establish the Firm’s notability per Wikipedia standards. • https://njbiz.com/sills-cummis-expands-price-gouging-practice/ • https://njbmagazine.com/monthly-articles/newark-celebrates-350-years/ • https://www.law360.com/articles/552814/new-jersey-powerhouse-sills-cummis-gross • https://www.nj.com/business/2011/01/nj_wineries_will_go_to_court_t.html • https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/20/realestate/marcos-holdings-shedding-web-of-intrigue.html?searchResultPosition=56 Gdavis22 ( talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |