Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 30 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Unjustified, inadequate time for discussion,
I respectfully request re-instatement and at least adequate time for AfD discussion. NBeale 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Yung Joc has confirmed in several interviews that this album will be released, and the first single "Coffee Shop" has been released and is gaining some buzz. Undelete, or at least Unprotect so someone with better information can restore it. Tom Danson 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Most notable sports surgeon working today - a number of people are looking for information about him. Would recommend adding some information from this page: http://www.asmoc.com/getpage.php?name=andrews SteveA3 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Firstly, no consensus was yet achieved. If anything, this page should have been relisted. Secondly, of the three keep votes for this page, most did not properly quote policy. We have:
Again, even if these were valid arguments, there was not enough time to achieve consensus. And this list is indeed very "crufty" - it's for a television series that lasted one year! I would go ahead and mass nominate all the planets for AFD, but I don't know how to do a mass nomination, and I'm anonymous. 64.178.96.168 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
He is still active in Canadian politics and plans to run in the next federal election, He is also a defendant in one of the many libel suits by Wayne Crookes that includes Wikipedia as a defendant |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
article got biased debate Neil zusman 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Overturn: This deletion was not "nearly unanimous agreement" (as mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs). He is obviously notable just by how much debate his controversy's have generated on his AfD page. Plus, he has ties to spiritual channellers Paul Shockley, David Worcester, and Ralph Duby (all outlined at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley for now, pending article rewrite). -Eep² 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It doesn't matter if what Dobbs said was true in order to be notable. Just the fact that he has caused all of this controversy is notable in itself! Even if it's all a lie, so what? There are plenty of notable fictionalists in Wikipedia... -Eep² 11:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 29 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
As the creator of two of the templates, i was not notified, and no one at the project who would be using this templates was notified. The reasons for deletion could have been addressed without actually deleting the templates. I'd also like to ask for some leniency, that even though the TFD was up for a week it occured during a period where most people who would be using these templates were likely involved in rl because the newest release of the games came out during this period. Aside from real world involvment, this also meant 100 page moves, and anon monitoring on those pages. Images were taking a backseat.-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This has established notability through mentions in seven news sources, including at least one (The Guardian) being primarily focused on ED. Also the MSNBC mention bad extensive coverage, which makes this even more notable. This has been mentioned various times since its creation in December 2004, and has more users than kept sites like Wikitruth or Memory Alpha. There are probably even more sources now. Alfedhun 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 28 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
UNDELETE_REASON 74.72.119.9 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) This is my first time writing one of these so please pardon any mistakes. I would like to see the article "Dead Awaken" in the "Browser-based games" category restored. This entry was deleted twice in a two day period. One admin sited the site as "irrelevant content", the other said that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". However the "Browser-based games" category continues to exist, and I don't see any of the other entries in that category being deleted. I will specifically note that entry for the competing browser based game "Urban Dead", continues to exist also. Earlier this month the Dead Awaken site removed a dozen of its most powerful players for sharing accounts and misusing administrator functions to read private e-mail and peek at player's profiles and statistics. I suspect this has something to do with the sudden need to remove information about the game from Wikipedia.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Second AFD seems to have been closed by just doing a head count... the actual discussion was much more important. Arguments for keeping were, and this is all of them: "Obviously those who want it deleting aren't getting any", "A unique Google count of 806,000 can't be ignored", "She genuinely is famous (I'd heard of her)", "such a high alexa ranking should pass the bio notes", "last i checked 809,000 unique google hits was notable" and a "per above" vote. Just to clarify, no guidelines or policies approve inclusion based on Google/Alexa rank. The arguments for deletion were that she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and no reliable sources exist at all. The arguments for deletion were not countered, and the arguments for keeping were extremely weak (none of them cited a policy, and only Oakshade bothered to reply to challenges, and he eventually agreed there weren't any reliable sources, but that we should keep because of her supposed popularity). This AFD should have been closed by considering the strength of arguments, not just by counting heads as if it were a simple vote, especially as verifiability problems were the main issue. This article is unverifiable, because no sources exist... there's been plenty of time to find some. Even the closer apparently thinks the article is original research, after I requested he look at it more carefully. The question isn't whether we've heard of this person, it's about if she meets inclusion standards... and in this case, there's no serious argument that she does. We shouldn't just be able to vote to violate WP:V and include original research. --W.marsh 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The reason for deletion was, "New userbox created in template space; should have been created in userspace per WP:GUS". [5] This is a userbox for members of WikiProject Southern California. If this should be in a userspace and not a template space, please instead userfy it, a subpage of mine would be fine... /Template:WP SOCAL or something. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hrmmm, neither of you guys are correct. The correct answer would be "project space", not user space or template space. I've recreated it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox. So just put {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox}} on your userpage and you're good to go. The reason this is better is because the location of the userbox makes it absolutely and immediately clear what it is a part of. All you have to do is follow the up link on it and there you are. Since it is associated with a WikiProject, it doesn't make sense to have it out in the wild of template space (where it cannot be found by a Special:Allpages prefix search on the WikiProject's name, which is a vital way to determine everything falling under the scope of a WikiProject), nor does it make sense to have it under only one user's userspace. This DRV is now moot. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was speedied under A7 (no assertion of notability. But iMO it clearly asserets notability, claims of cover positiosn on local magazines, plus multiple TV appearences, pretty clearly claim notability, IMO. And sources are cited for at least soem of this. But the sources are not online, and I have not verified them. The original creator seems to have WP:COI issues, and the origianl version was highly promotional. But the current version (and the version delted) have had the peacock terms removed. I'm not sure if this should be taken to AfD, or what. Notabilitym even assuming that all claims are accurate, is borderline. So i have undelted and brought this here so that people can see what is involved. DES (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 27 April 2007
|
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL this template was nominated for deletion and no consensus was reached. And then, just
Some quotes from the deletion review " It's only stating your personal preference, we all go along with the rules but we don't always like them - this is just our little way of saying that while we abide by the rules, we may not personally agree"; "wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus." And as for disagreeing with some of Wikipedia's rules means I shouldn't be part of a project...please. Does that mean someone should leave America because they disagree with its stance on gay marriage? Give me a break. I've made over 7500 edits and I've created over 20 articles. Don't tell me that because I disagree with some of Wikipedia's rules that I should just leave. Either way, if this stays deleted I'm going to make "This user supports fair use" userbox which shouldn't be considered 'inflammatory' as it states a simple opinion without deriding others.--CyberGhostface 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"All items in template and user space are governed by the civility policy.
* Userboxes must not include blatant incivility or personal attacks.
* Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive.
* Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning.
Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes."
|
||||||||||||||||
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was deleted perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a longstanding sourced article. mervyn 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I found this on CSD patrol and was editing it whan another admin delted it. It was unwikified and unsourced, but IMO it did claim notability, and now clearly does, albiet not major notability. I undeleted it and cleaned it up. i also moved it from the original name of Milo emil halbheer, so that is where the delete log will be. I bring it here for review. DES (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC) DES (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Putting this Howard Stern show producer and cast member up for DRV simply because there was no consensus to delete. 3 "keep" votes and 2 "delete" votes. Anticipating the Wikipedia is not a Democracy arguement, all the editors supported their stance beyond "just a vote." This warrents a review.--Oakshade 10:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
speedy was improper Beganstory 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
New Page, Old title Work permit 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC) This article was speedly deleted, I assume because it has the same title as one that was deleted in the past. My bad for choosing the same title and noting that in discussion page. This article is different in scope and definition. Specifically, it is limited to billboard top 100 hits (so it will be small and manageable) and has a clear definition of inclusion with no subjectivity (which apparently the old article did not).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 26 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
AfD was originally closed by Doc glasgow as a "keep". [10]. Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reversed the decision, and deleted the page, calling the previous close "nonsense" [11]. I believe both the decisions and the appropriateness of the reversal should be examined here. (For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the unilateral reversal, and the discussion looks like a no consensus to me.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Update - new article created Following the AfD debate and this DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:
I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged). Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The policy cited as cause for deletion was that the article was not notable. The Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state the basis for determining notability which the article met. It had multiple, non-trivial, arms-length citations. There were no arguments given, just "delete votes. The Administrator failed in their duty to assign proper weight in an objective manner to the issues as set out in the Wikipedia notability policy. Verne Andru 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Myg0t is notable, having been covered by Teen People magazine, Mandy Moore admitting to being a famous member of this "clan". Also, the group has been covered in other sources, notably the British Now! celebrity magazine. The Teen People issue was way back in November 2003, while the Now! mention was in July 2006. These are reliable enough sources, that mean this is discussion-worthy, and besides, myg0t should not have been deleted. This information wasn't mentioned at the time when the original articles were written. Samllaws300 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This school is notable, and the policy on schools says it has to be the subject of multiple sources, which it has been. It's been mentioned in the Southport Visiter, back in June 2002, the Daily Star in April 2003, and then November 2004, so notability is there. It seems no-one's taken any notice of these sources - and the debate should be allowed to run again, due to this new evidence! Whiteleaf30 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was deleted because people thought he was not notable. But he seems to be notable, having been in Company magazine in February 2006, and also in Real People magazine, in August 2006 (both British magazines). I would hope these meet your criteria for reliable sources, but as it stands, he's had non-trivial coverage, so the article should be undeleted. At the time of the original debate, this evidence wasnt mentioned! Delacruz162 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Delacruz162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It seems the main reason this category was deleted was because it was considered neologism, even "redundant neologism" when in fact the expression 'Big Four' has been used to describe these grunge bands from Seattle numerous times. You can go to a search engine and look it up. It took me about five minutes to find the term used on Answers.com <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:tOZ4201p2kYJ:www.answers.com/topic/big-four+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us> and Sputnik Music <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:59lcGC8CC_IJ:www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Pearl%2BJam+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us>. Even on Wikipedia, if the administrators who claimed neologism had bothered to do their job and look into the matter, 'Big Four' is used on the Soundgarden page and the Pearl Jam page, both complete with listings of the other two bands included. Perhaps Big Four Seattle Bands would have been a more aptly named category? If so that is fine with me. It just bothers me that some administrators who take pride in their 'contributions' (which ironically end up hurting wikipedia) don't even look into the matter at hand before voicing their opinions. Not only that, but by looking at the categories for discussion page for march 29, it seems that some take pride in being sarcastic assholes as well. Keyver17 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It might be helpful if any editors endorsing the close could state if they think it is ok for Jewish MS to remain in a sub-category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, or, if not what they think should be done to resolve the situation. Johnbod 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was a page written about an influential gay rights activist in northeastern Ohio, and at first it was done poorly, but the final version of the article was done quite well and in good taste. I currently have the final copy in my files, so I can show it if need be. Please allow this to continue to stay on wikipedia. Thank you. --The909 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 24 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was speedily deleted as promotional material. The user that created it has requested a copy of the text of it, so they can either work on a less promotional version or merge with other content. I see no harm in this and request a copy be placed on their user page if possible. Artw 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No reason to have this image deleted Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted due to lack of multiple sources. Now 2 sources exist: The De Morgen article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/demorgen.jpg and The Daily Nebraskan article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/nebraskan.jpg Kernow 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was previously kept in WP:TFD debates. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Restore No need for another Tfd Felixboy 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
talk page of undeleted article Armypower 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Notable Internet Celebrity - on par with Geriatric1927, Paul Robinett, Ben Going, Cory Williams (all referenced by Wikipedia as 'notable'). See also references to television appearances on MTV and The FIZZ Credentials: YouTube Awards 2006 - nominated for Most Creative Video and holds the record for the Most Responded Video OF ALL TIME as recorded by YouTube - this is the largest recorded response to an online viral video on the internet. MadV in the press: Townhall.com AC media company PEPSI top 10 HOT list ABC News Lungsboat 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I was checking old edits of mine and noticed that the Archibald Motley page was deleted. After checking the deletion log it seemed it was tagged for copyright violation by Zscout370. I of course followed the link to the "source" website, and lo and behold--there is the entire Wiki article. I wrote that article over a year ago, and this website has taken it without crediting Wikipedia. I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I am the author of that article and this website, http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/motley.htm, has shamelessly nicked, word for word, my (well, Wikipedia's) article. I was very disturbed to see my writing up there and I did not, repeat, did not, steal from that website. I wrote it for Wiki, and it should belong to Wiki. The webpage was last modified Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:25:51 PM, LONG after I had written the article (April or so of 2006). Because the editor says he could not verify with absolute certainty which came first, he stands by the deletion. I think this is ridiculous. I wrote that article, it belongs to Wikipedia, and that website should be forced to at least credit the source or cease and desist rather than shamelessly stealing, word for word, the entry that should belong to Wikipedia. Torie 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Edited to add: Something I realized could be a dead giveaway that this was a Wikipedia article: Check out the intro paragraph. The fact that I used sentences like "Archibald Motley was an American Painter" should be a giveaway that I was using the phrase "American Painter" to link to the article on American Painters. Also note that I begin the paragraph with "Archibald John Motley, Junior (September 2, 1891, New Orleans, Louisiana – January 16, 1981, Chicago, Illinois)" (the standard Wikipedia format. NONE of the other biographies on the website do so--they all begin with "Born in 19XX, blah blah.." or something much more casual. There is absolutely no resemblance between this article and the other biographies. I hope this helps as proof. Torie 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
MyCFO, myCFO Inc., also operating as Harris myCFO, is a substantial multinational corporation started in 1999, involved in many activities including complex financial services, accounting, banking, tax advice, and tax preparation. myCFO is easily verifiable and relates to a range of topics. The Wikipedia article, the only one describing myCFO, is directly attributed to a reliable newsprint and online credible objective reference source, The Wall Street Journal specfically a March 6, 2007 Internationally Published Newspaper Front Page Cover Fold Story (thus public domain headline, news text, and cover image are also public display copyright fair use with attribution). The reference article is externally linked to a source reference attribution [[26]] This attributed WSJ article is itself linked to the wsjonline.com were attributed references used for the investigative report can be found, and the wsj even provides further online links directly to original source documents referenced and cited in the WSJ source article. The WSJ myCFO article references many corporations and individuals who each meet Wikipedia notability criteria. This same WSJ article also references multiple US Government agencies and public record actions specifically referenced by the WSJ article and notable. Notable facts are reported in a neutral point of view that merits this article about myCFO to be included in Wikipedia. Request Request
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was deleted for lack of Notability. Since the deletion, several articles featuring BrainKeeper have been published (Miami Herald, CNet), and BrainKeeper was specifically mentioned by a Forrester analyst in Processor Magazine[28]. I believe this page now passes the qualifications for Notability. Cganskewiki 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I see no consensus for keeping the template. Discussion ended with 7 users endorsing deletion and 4 users endorsing keeping the template, yet result of the discussion was "to keep." I propose to overturn and delete as nom. Michael Greiner 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initially deleted as a copyright violation, new information regarding AFI's 100 lists here indicates that these lists are in the public domain. The ORTS ticket is included on the page too. Although the article was recreated and deleted multiple times, I hope that if it is relisted, the admin can find the original version. UnfriendlyFire 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Famous Bodyguard Demonthesis 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Demonthesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I do not understand why this page has been deleted? Cole Hunter for you who are not in the Bodyguard or close protection environment is well known for protecting celebrities and his current client is very high profile in the sports world. Just do some proper research on Bodyguards and sports stars bodyguards. He is also due to appear in a major film to be released in January of 2008.
He was the WWE bodyguard Majesticangel 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Majesticangel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. For Christ sake...this Wikipedia is like the papers say a Joke. Cole Hunter is a very well known Bodyguard to the Sports stars. He was Eric Cantonas Bodyguards 4 years ago and now protects a very well known US sports star.
there is info but hard to find Well to be fair my fellow friend I have spent the last 2 hours researching "Cole Hunter" which I have found out is an alias. he used to be a bodyguard for a rich asian called Li ka Shing I am trying to find his real name as he changed it when he moved to canada and then the UK. He is very elusive. I will report back. By the way hes half chinese and half english. AndrewJoJo 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— AndrewJoJo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sincerely, Tim Rigney
I think you should let this article remain. There seems to be a lot of interest in this article from what I see. I spent all of last night (sad indeed) looking up this "Cole Hunter". From what I gather he was a Bodyguard for some rich asian dude. He then moved to Canada to look after the asian mans son before moving back to the UK. In the process he changed his name to the adoptive "Cole Hunter" possibly to keep a low profile. I was reading march 2004 copy of HEAT magazine and in their is one of the only pics you will see of him. Endorse the article. You may get an influx of people who know something about this elusive guy. But on all accounts he is a Bodyguard to some of the top people. And he is only 30. Nemisis50 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Nemisis50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I said i would be back...Another member Demonthesis said Cole Hunter was going to be in a film and it is actually listed on IMDB under the following film "Cordially Invited" (2007) (post-production) and if you look through the cast members you will come across Cole Hunter so I think that while this guy is hard to trace maybe his Job forces him to. Worth considering AndrewJoJo 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats bullshit....look up all the other actors....and check their film listing and they will all say that film title. I think that is proof enough if you compare it to some of the shit and obviously untrue article this site produces. I honestly think that this guy is for real. Just because you may have a bullshit job does not mean that everyone else does. In reply to cordesat AndrewJoJo 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
After watching this guys page or whatever you may call this I can see that people like the Administrators on here were the type of people that got bullied during school. Pathetic losers with not much of a social life and definately either the "ugliest girlfriend or wife (but a nice personality) or no-one at all.) I do not care what the retaliation comment the Administrators or whoever gets to choose if the articles stay or not all I can really say is that I have no sympathy for people like the admin who are destined to be sad lonely people with constant harrassment from their younger years to their deaths. Now everyone watch the smart comments from the admin. This is my last comment on this subject and would all the people I emailed (by the way it was bulk email 34,000 - on Black market press - great site and excellent replies thanks guys) start the email/ "article" display for this site I asked for at midnight (GMT). That should get the admin going and Ive copied this page for you guys to read through and also emailed it. I THINK MR HUNTERS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY. Lets see if people can add to the article and we can all really find out something about Mr Hunter. Demonthesis 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion Per all of the above, sans socks. >.> My, that was interesting. And not a little creepifying. Wysdom 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 23 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
there is proof that the site used to exist and was popular using the internet wayback machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.zydeisland.com Ikahootz 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=445 - a well known online gaming site (bible like) that quotes "The constant updates are just one of the many reasons for their almost 12,000 players. " http://www.gamesdex.com/gameview.php/359 which sent almost 8,000 users to the site http://www.geocities.com/zydeislandhelp/ fan site thats not been updated since the game was active in 2002 there were many other fan sites etc back in 2000 - 2002 but they have all become obsolete and deleted since, I'd say it deserves a mention here so that when people do look it up (which they do or the new domain owners wouldn't continue to renew their lease on teh domain) they can see what it was. the games fan base was for early teens in 2000 before they all started making websites, thats probably teh main reason there isn't much reference to it on the web. Critticage has an article and Zyde was bigger than that then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.172.116.172 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The debate on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!) My reasons for questioning the decision are: 1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it. 2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page. (It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.) 3. The debate, such as it was, mainly centred on how to spell. Few reasoned arguments were given for deletion. 4. The debate was closed in a great hurry. 5. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau. 6. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces. 7. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux). 8. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles! 9. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace. This category needs to be reinstated, particularly to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. (on behalf of User:Emeraude)
I support the recreation of this category for the reasons given by the person initially requesting the article be recreated. --164.107.223.217 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
What is Blabbermouth.net? it is a news source for information on heavy metal bands, such as album dates, sales, interviews, touring information visited by thousands each and everyday. Who owns Blabbermouth? the record company Roadrunner Records. It was deleted because apparently "no notability asserted (a7)" yet musicians from bands such as Slayer, KISS, The Haunted, Kittie have commented on the website and was mentioned on The Howard Stern Show. The article did not go through a AFD nor had any clean-up tags. It also features CD and DVD reviews by the staff at Roadrunner Records and it's linked on many album pages, i don't see any cause for a speedy deletion M3tal H3ad 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
See also The Jeopards (band) and The Jeopards (German band). Deleted and, in some places, salted repeatedly as an A7 although most versions had clear assertions of notability. Improper to speedy them per A7, should have gone to AfD. Overturn and list. badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Believe it or not, this is a real game for the Game Boy Color. That aside, the article deletion is odd, the log says "{{db-empty}}", but then goes on to list the content (and what at least looks to be a good start). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Notable enough for an article per this. I would like the history restored, but the content improved, since I found reliablke sources. Rllemsheep 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 22 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
this is an article on a top 500 website that should have never been deleted. Honordrive 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Here are just some of them - [41][42][43][44][45]. This passes the absolute core of WP:NOTABILITY, not to mention WP:BIO. The published works about this person were inspired by her being a victim in the Virginia Massacre. This victim stood out as a major story in Canada. A majority of the "delete" votes were using the incorrect arguments to delete this article. For one "Doesn't pass WP:PROF." WP:PROF doesn't apply as she's not "notable" due to her academic work. Alot of people cited the Wikipedia is not a memorial clause (buried deep in WP:NOT), but this doesn't apply as WP:MEMORIAL states; "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This wasn't somebody writing an article about their grandpa, but it was someone who passed our primary "notability" standards by being the primary subject of multiple published works. It appears that if someone passes our core WP:NOTABILITY guidelines easily, some editors can arbitrarily employ WP:IGNORE if they don't like the reasons that a topic was the primary subject of non-trivial published works by reliable sources. That negates are core "Notablitly" standards greatly. --Oakshade 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Additional comment - I guess I should've said this to begin with (too caught up in the arguement of incorrect applications of our guidelines), but there also wasn't a clear consenus to delete. --Oakshade 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Also from WP:NOTE, "In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources." Since the articles source solely from the people who knew and cared for Mme. Couture-Nowack AND quote them extensively, what you're left with (after removing the POV quotations) is a laundry list of biographical facts that mirror one another--neutral, but redundant. Since the articles all report the same information from the same angle, they do not satisfy as having a "depth of content". Pick your favourite one, and that's a single source. (WP:NOTE #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources"). Now come down off your high horse, if you please. It's one thing to mount an attack on flawed logic; quite another to invent flaws so you can attack. @Others: Apologies for the long-windedness. Wysdom 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted without adequate consensus. Although there were numerically more votes to delete than to keep, most of the deletes came early in the discussion and cited to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Later votes to keep explained in detail why neither of these exclusions was apt, and these later comments went unrebutted. Given that fewer than 70% of the votes were to delete, deletion is not supposed to be by majority vote, and the material here is general and notable reference material that does not fit into any of the categories at WP:NOT, the debate should have been resolved in favor of "keep" per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. Krinsky 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have created a an article on a game called Lost that has the url lost.eu I would like to put a redirect to Lost (computer game) here. I believe this article is of better quality then the past versions because it explains the game in more detail Vantar 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted without proper review. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Georges_Jeanty for some of his more notable work—Preceding unsigned comment added by Borednow (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 21 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
UNDELETE_REASON - I made all the recommended changes. An Encyclopedia is for people to find that something exists and so should wikipedia. With the constant outbreak of E.coli, and other food borne illnesses please need to know. I made the article as neutral as possible I followed the recommended changes from suggestions from others 24.82.95.162 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)--24.82.95.162 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Several high profile news appearances and articles published. Widely read syndicated columnist, well-known information security researcher, and published author. Zulu13 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
CFD was closed as "merge", when the balance of the discussion was "no consensus". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I attempted to raise the issue with the closing admin (Radiant!) on his talk page, but the discussion was deleted because Radiant objected to some of the issues raised, so I have now restored it on my talk page. Interested editors may also want to read a review by BenAveling of the closure, at Please note that I will now place a notice that this DRV is underway to all the participants in the original CFD, plus the Radiant (as closing admin), and BenAveling (as reviewer). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Improper speedy delete. Article is notable after a researcher at BBC wrote a Guide Entry including this theory in his review of Neanderthals [65] Rdos 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Admin Cyde Weys deleted this user subpage of !mine on the grounds of WP:CSD#T1. I contacted him [66] and expressed my disagreement, as not only this page is not on the template space, as IMO it can hardly be considered "divisive and inflammatory". No response from Cyde. Húsönd 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
These are the official forums of Nintendo of America. That should be enough to say it's notable enough to not get an A7 like it did. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 20 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There were so far 4 votes to keep and 5 votes to delete; after less than one day of existence, the UCFD was speedily-deleted as a WP:POINT. I believe that good arguments to consider it otherwise were made in the discussion and that admins should at least have left the discussion run its full course. If it was a WP:POINT, nobody showed that it caused any disruption, and as I said, valid objections and at least one alternative to the deletion were raised, so it is clear to me that the speedy-deletion was at the very least premature.--Ramdrake 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Nominating this procedurally as the request for a DRV has been posted incorrectly (on the AfD talk page). As User:Billy Hathorn, the creator of the article and requestor of the DRV, has recently lodged a complaint at AN/I regarding my alleged "harassment" of him in XfD discussions, I won't take any part in this discussion - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Billy Hathorn 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There were 8 "keeps", including 4 "strong keeps", against 6 "deletes" and 1 "merge" - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:Systems. The summary says this was a "judgement call" to delete. The original reason given was overcategorization. Although not explicitly stated, I assume from the discuss that this relates to the section WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. However, the examples given seem to be very specific and obvious cases, whereas systems are a much more general case. In particular, the articles and categories included were related by the fact that they all covered the semantic concept of systems across different domains, not merely that they used the name "system". While I can agree that the category needed diffusion, I do not agree that it deserved deletion on this guideline as it currently stands, which I believe has been somewhat misinterpreted in this case. Either that or the guidelines on overcategorization need to be updated to make it clear that they are much more wide-ranging than the examples included at present. Jonathan Bowen 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
They're a pretty popular filmmaking group and I added stuff on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.34.200 (talk)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. I'm not sure what the text was at the point of deletion, but this item is clearly notable under WP:WEB, having been covered in BusinessWeek [79], PC Magazine [80], Boston Herald [81], Salon.com [82], among many others. It's also notable as one of the most prominent projects using Ruby on Rails. JavaTenor 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
UNDELETE_easily qualifies for notability as a STATE party chairman -- Billy Hathorn 02:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Should be 1.7, instead of 1.61. UNDELETE_qualifies for notability as (1) a founder of Denver City, Texas, the last oil boom town in the state. Secondly, (2) he was cited by the original editor of the article for DYK status: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KNM/Archive3#Cecil_A._Bickley_on_DYK_for_11_March_2007 (3) There is a library named for Mr. Bickley, and (4) he did an oral history interview with Texas Tech, (5) civic accomplishments. Here is the article: (redacted) -- Billy Hathorn 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted after some five months on the site for "lack of notability." Dhartung belittled Mr. Hebert's election as the last streets and parks commissioner of Alexandria, LA -- said it was an ex officio position in a "small city". No, there were three elected commissioners prior to 1977; each administered a third of city operations. He was elected as streest and parks commissioner, not given those duties after the election. He was elected at-large; the city had about 47,000 population at the time, but it is a metro area with over 100,000. Then Iridescenti falsely accused me of violating copyright on the article, but what could he mean? There was also ridicule in the AfD of Hebert having invented a new kind of sewer pipe lining. Also, Mr. Hebert may qualify for WP because of his sports activities: "He played first base on the 1950 SLI Gulf States Championship baseball team." He was at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Here is the article: (redacted) -- Billy Hathorn 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 19 April 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
New reference to support notability.Please look at the following external links that will be added to the page http://startupsquad.com/2007/04/11/exclusive-ghost-webos-for-real/ http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/04/10/ghost-to-showcase-virtual-computer-for-web-20-expo/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 http://o20db.com/db/ghost/ http://www.webware.com/8300-1_109-2-0.html?keyword=g.ho.st TareqM 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I find this one confusing. The nomination was to "rename", but the closing administrator closed as a "delete". I do not see a single person advocate for deletion in the discussion. If someone wants to delete the category, a deletion should be proposed and a discussion had on that issue.A Musing 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Redirect is useful, and should not have been deleted. 69.140.164.142 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cross-name space redirects are just not a good thing: and this one was clearly proving the point. --SunStar Net talk 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closed wrongly. 15 Delete to 10 Keep ignored by closing admin; Strong delete arguments re WP:BIO non-notable ignored by closing admin; "partisan shenanigans" acknowledged but ignored by closing admin, see diff Justanother 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I should note that the closing admin seems to have changed his close from "Keep" to "No consensus"? 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think that this one may qualify for the "exception" noted in WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people. It was included in a group nom, but it was different than the rest in this. I'd like to see it at least renominated. - jc37 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This image is a photograph taken by a student on his cell phone during the Virginia Tech massacre. It was published by the Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech's school newspaper at http://collegemedia.com/ (the exact image URL is http://www.collegemedia.com/emerg3.jpg.) The student who took the photo is unquestionably NOT a reporter nor photographer for the CT. The CT does not own the copyright to the photo - the student does and the CT is using it either under a claim of fair use or with his permission. The logs [87] for the page are quite colorful. The deleting admin cited point #4 of section 107 (see [88]) which says that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" is considered when determining whether a use constitutes "fair use". The whole idea here is that if you write a book and I copy and paste the juiciest part of your book on my website, that is not fair use because nobody needs to buy your book any more. But in this case, the only potential market value is potential licensing fees. When we are dealing with a real news media photo, that's a big deal - by using a Reuters photo without permission, we would be depriving Reuters of their right to sell us that photo for a fee - that's how Reuters makes their money. But this photo is owned by a student, not a press agency. In any event, nothing in the deletion log resembles a criterion for speedy deletion. I ask that the image be restored. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 18 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Endorse nominating a verifiable article for speedy deletion. This is not a memorial09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Despite strong opinions on both sides, admin called deletion discussion "a waste of time" and judged a "speedy keep". Clear violation of WP:CSK (see Cordesat's entry below). Besides lacking consensus for such a decision, at the very least we need much more time to discuss, and we must pay STRICT attention to users' opinions making sure that they are based on policy, not emotion. Pablosecca 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
“**I could live with reopening but obviously I think people who want to delete are incorrect. I should really learn to just form opinions that can easilly be expressed in a bolded word or phrase huh? --W.marsh 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The decision by the administrator was not based on the consensus of the review. The result of the discussion was overwhelmingly to keep. The reason given by the administrator—that the list was redundant to the category—was completely discredited in the comments; a list is not the same thing as a category; a category can't be annotated, a category can't list all the pseudonyms for the performers, a category cannot provide a list of articles that need to be written. The closing administrator of the previous Afd specifically spoke to not relying on a category. A question of linkspam has arisen because the consensus is that each name on the list has to be individually sourced. The links are to retail websites that list the videos in which the performers have appeared and offer some of them for sale (although the most frequently used site, tlavideo, continues to list :videos for a performer which are no longer available). The Adult Film Database and Internet Adult Film Database are both woefully lacking in listings regarding gay porn; the afdb also has links to retail websites in their videographies (see examples at the afdb). The retail sites provide unquestionably reliable sources; such sources are difficult to come by. Not approving of the available reliable sources is no reason to delete an entire article. Work with the editors of the article to find other acceptable reliable sources or some other solution. Links to listings at the IMDb may be used in some cases, although not every notable performer is listed there or their listing has such a brief list of films that it does nothing to establish any notability. —Chidom talk 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I'm so unused to this that I forgot to add my tildes to the above Cannonmc 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cannonmc 13:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
now have two articles Bundar 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Was told my article would be undeleted if I had two sources about the company I want to write about.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A big name in british wrestling was unjustly deleted via prod (i myself have been away for a few weeks, but if i had been avaliable i would have removed the prod myself). The wrestler concerned has worked in/continues to work with the biggest promotions within the UK, holding some major lightwieght titles in excess of a year. The article itself had over 20 pages linking to it and Jordan has a high number of google hits Paulley 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Overturn and delete all - The CFD closed with a proper delete for the parent category and for "Adam Sandler films" and a rename of the remaining categories to add the words "(film series)" to follow the names of the actors. Here are the problems with this solution. First, these are not film "series" as the term is used on Wikipedia. They do not in most cases follow the same characters from one film to the next, they do not in most cases serve as sequels, they do not carry forward stories or situations from one film to the next. The solution came about as the result of a compromise which at least in part appers to be premised on the notion that the films in question constitute "genres" or "subgenres" on their own. This notion does not appear to be grounded in independent scholarship and thus constitutes impermissible original research. Other arguments in favor of keeping/renaming the category included comparisons of the merits of these categories to other categories, which is not persuasive. The result of the CFD is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT being applied to the categories and the rename closure is a mistake. Otto4711 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I feel that the administrator interpreted the closing IfD for this image wrongly. The discussion here to me seemed to result in no consensus, if not keep. Instead the image was deleted with the edit summary, "per IfD". When I queried the admin, they stated they had deleted it because it was orphaned - however, it was only orphaned because Matthew kept taking it off of Andrew Van De Kamp and I was not prepared to edit war over an image that could be well have been deleted mere days later. Had this image been kept I would have immediately placed it back on Andrew's article. I therefore do not believe this to be a good reason for the deleting the image, and also considering the compelling arguments presented to keep the image on the IfD, ask that it be undeleted so it can be restored to Andrew's article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Though the picture is subject to copyright I feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
I just don't see how this is not acceptable as a Fair Use image. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closing admin admits mistake in closing prematurely; fails WP:MUSIC; only "keep" votes were SPAs or WP:ILIKEIT votes THF 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's obvious from last.fm's Despair page history that I made this edit on last.fm myself. More than that, all user-contributed content on last.fm pages is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. If somebody were able to find http://www.last.fm/music/Despair/+wiki page, they should be able to read GFDL notice on it. Serguei Trouchelle 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 17 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "it's interesting," "it's well-trafficked," "featured on Digg" etc. which fails to address the fact that the page is in violation of WP:NOR, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Salted film that has a complete IMDB entry with screenshots. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
New information about the band, not available at the time of the AfD discussion, is now available.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
These were the quasi-cabinet members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) organisation. a.k.a. CARICOM's decision makers. CARICOM IS- the heads of government and one Secrtary General and his small support staff. Hence why it moves so slowly because if a Prime Minister in any territory gets voted out, it is considered a referendum partly on his CARICOM agenda. Example. The Bahamas. I don't know who changed the CARICOM article but CARICOM is not led like the EU. When a leader takes over the presidency. It just means they get to interject their territories agenda. But they have no "EXECUTIVE" power over the whole thing. CaribDigita 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
New Precident If a list of all the churches in a small town can be saved why not a list of ones that each on their own could merit articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.101.179.35 (talk)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 16 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was deleted and then per complaint by the article creator, administrator overturned their ruling of consensus and changed it to no consensus. I believe that at the very least the debate should be reopened so that consensus can be reached. Note that there seems to be a growing consensus toward deleting showing up in the discussion. ScienceApologist 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The YouTuber Ben Going, Boh3m3, is, in fact, notable, at least as much as other YouTubers on Wikipedia. I never saw the page, it is currently protected, but barring excessive vandalism I can't imagine there was a good reason to delete him in the first place, although he HAS gained in notability since then: to start with, his username lands 264,000 hits on Google; considering the unique spelling, this is a huge number. Though I can't at the moment find a source, he was nominated for the 2006 YouTube awards. He is the 14th most subscribed YouTube account with 30,500 subscribers, which alone must satisfy the notability rules' definition of a "cult audience". Plus, the forum on his website, boh3m3.net, currently has 1,479 registered posters. Far from being a testament to Going's vanity, these users do seem to have developed a community independent of fan worship. For harder evidence, here's a list of a few of Going's appearences in mainstream media. I'm sure there are others:
Finally... Think of the children! Won't somebody think of the children! Ichormosquito 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 15 April 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk page of Category:Economy of mainland China. Michael G. Davis 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Survived DRV and CFD last month. Michael G. Davis 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I object strongly to the recent deletion of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians. It would appear that in the process of discussing it, no effort was made to contact those of us who objected in the previous debate, nor were the many arguments attached to the "strong keeps" there addressed. Thus, if nothing else, I think this should probably be reversed on a process basis: at least two of us consider ourselves to have been blindsided.[95] [96] and at least one other has expressed surprise at not being notified. Krimpet apparently feels the deletion was correct, so I am bringing the matter here. (One more process matter: I would like an undeletion rather than merely permission to start from zero, so that the article history is restored, but would expect that most of the content would be deleted immediately after a restoration.) But, aside from process questions:
As is common in these matters, there was material in that article that merited removal. I would not have objected to the removal of most uncited information from the list (although I give examples below of some things so obvious that a request for citation seems absurd), but deletion of the article is another matter. We do not normally delete an article because part of it is poorly cited. I believe that over the history of the article I have either cited or removed every time there has been a specific request for citation: this is pretty much the usual. If people are not requesting citations, they should not be deleting for lack of citations. Here are some examples of material there that I would say was solid, well-cited, and (at least to me) interesting; this is a representative rather than an exhaustive list:
There are at least a dozen others comparably well-cited. There was also a lengthy and well-cited discussion of covert references in Don McLean's "American Pie", including citations to McLean's own web site that referred to the other citation used as "mainstream" analysis of his lyrics. Other things are so obvious as to make a request for citation almost absurd.
I can't quickly see how many of these there are (they are, of course, harder to spot than overt citations, and I'm not going to look at every entry) but there are clearly quite a few. If citation is really needed for these, I imagine it could usually be found, but this is like citing for "To be, or not to be" being a reference to Shakespeare. There are, by the way, many other list articles that can be looked at for comparison. Allow me to point at some:
All of these are completely without citations and, except for the first, they raise comparable issues of matters not being self-evident (who decides the boundaries of doo-wop? Apparently, whoever last edits the page) and hence comparable need for citation. Besides all that, though, I'm going to reiterate what I said about this article over a year ago. Although anyone who reviews my edits will easily see that I am not one to spend any large part of my working time on trivia, nonetheless I am firmly of the opinion that we need articles like this as well. They make Wikipedia fun. Certainly they are of more interest than our ponderously dull article on Charmander whose plodding tone is relieved only by the inclusion of fair use images. If we have so much of a stick up our collective arse that we would rather write leaden articles about matters even more trivial (I would hope that Patti Smith and David Bowie will still be fondly remembered when Pokémon is consigned to the dustbin of history), then that represents a serious enough problem to raise doubt about whether I belong as part of the project. I have no illusion that I'm so important to Wikipedia that the article should be saved as sort of a referendum on my presence, but I do think it is sort of a referendum on whether Wikipedia is going to remain capable of any lightness at all. Which I think it should, and that spirit is/was a lot of why I got involved here in the first place. Again: let's remove the uncited material. Fine. But why remove material that meets our standards for citation, in an article that several dozen people have worked on, and where clearly there are a lot of people who really like the article? - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry to chime in again, but looking at the above I see a lot of straw man arguments, especially the claim that this is difficult or impossible to reference. I suggest that people look at User:Jmabel/songs, where I've placed a stripped-down version of the article containing only what I think was adequately cited (in one case - "Pork Pie Hat" - I tracked down the citation just now. (By the way, our two existing articles pork pie hat and Lester Young that mention that the song is an elegy for Young do not currently cite for that claim.) We could easily disagree over whether a few items have adequate citation - that's part of the normal process here - but that is not a reason to remove an article. (By the way, some of the weaker remaining citations are among the A's, so please skim down a bit.) Also, I see that several people here have been saying "delete it because the process was OK." Even if the process was OK, I believe that there is enormous precedent for overturning a deletion if there is now a decent replacement article, regardless of the fact that the process for deletion may have been acceptable. And thank you, Biruitorul, for reminding me of "ignore all rules". It has been so in abeyance lately that I forgot it was still official policy (not even a mere guideline). It seems to me that if it is now trumped by a page that "simply reflects some opinions of its authors", so that we must remove a well-cited article that many people have worked on, like, and find interesting, then WP:IAR should be removed as policy. It is misleading to have a policy that we never follow. - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary was: 16:20, 2 April 2007 . . Krimpet (Talk | contribs | block) (nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (2nd nomination)) --Ezeu 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point of time, the rights or wrongs of AfD2 are water under the bridge and endless postmortem argument over it is unlikely to reach a conclusion. What I suggest is: (1) Jmabel recreates the article in the most rule-compliant form he can manage, (2) If anyone still thinks it should be deleted, let them start AfD3 and inform everyone who was involved in either of the previous AfDs and this discussion. This should be enough to render obsolete all present arguments about process and consensus. In order to allow step (2), we need to disallow speedy deletion. Are we agreed? --Zerotalk 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm a contributor to KCWU, and some of the information on User:The Noon Thing would be useful in the KCWU article. I agree that the deleted article doesn't belong as it was, but I'd like to request to userfy it into a subpage of my name. Thanks. EndlessVince 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Consider this a review of the deletion review. The purpose of deletion review is to provide "an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." With no discussion in a proper forum on the article in question, and a clear breach of process, the review simply did not come to a proper conclusion. Per strength of argument alone, this should have been restored and listed at AfD, so I'm requesting that the original DRV be overturned and list the article at AfD. Out of respect for people involved, consider this a test case and don't close this down early - if we can't appeal deletions properly, or improper deletion reviews, we have a bigger problem on our hands in terms of a proper content appeal. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted as copyright violation (WP:CSD G12). But the article was about a book (see Google cache). How can it be considered a copyright violation? If the rankings part was copyright violation, it should have been removed. The deletion of article on a book as CSD G12 looks weird. 220.227.179.4 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The majority of editors commenting on the deletion supported keeping the content, either by keeping the page or by merging the page with South Australian general election, 2006. Because this page is locked from editing, no merge took place after deletion. ALso, the reasons given be some editors for deletion were suspect. one thought an FA shouldn't be edited, another incorrectly identified the page as a duplicate fork. ChampagneComedy 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Comments by Orderinchaos
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There seems to be a revived interest in restoring this as a full-fledged article instead of a redirect now that User:A Man In Black, the primary force behind making it a redirect, has left Wikipedia. This is procedural and I have no real interest in it either way, so there's No Vote on my part. JuJube 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 14 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was speedy deleted as spam (blatent advertising) but I don't think it qualified. The project described seems to have involved some notablwe peopel and to be notable itself. The article does need beeter sourcing, and perhaps a rewrite for better NPOV. But it was not the typical one-or-two-editor spamvertising page, and i don't think a speedy is a good idea. Since this is a judgement call, I'm bringign it here. Overturn and List on AfD. DES (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) DES (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The subject is notable, has been mentioned in Take a Break magazine, which is a non-trivial source (it's a British magazine), and the article should be undeleted. Candyfighter3333 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Guille is the leader of the Canadian Heritage Alliance (the article for which was recently undeleted), and a prominent member of the Canadian radical right. The last version of this article was a sourced stub, which was deleted without an afd or speedy notice. CJCurrie 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
if you don't have access to Lexis/Nexis or Factiva. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
overturn - Yet another white supremacist who doesn't deserve their true colours hidden. --Mista-X 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
--Jimbo Wales 04:03, 1 January 2007
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 13 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Since deletion has gain additional notiriety in it's field. ZDnet, On TV RLTV and BBC let me know if you need additional resources. If you doubt it's growing popularity and notable features just search google for Feed Me Bubbe and you will see a lot of big people including Jeff Pulver talking about the program. Chalutz 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Undelete: Barkeater Lake is a comic distributed by United Media, deleted by User:Sandstein under A7, a user with a known bias against comics distributed online. The comic clearly meets any notability criteria as it is distributed by one of the largest print syndicates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedily deleted as A1 (no context) although the context was undeniably clear even by what's in the deletion summary. Should be undeleted, we have articles on most Ren and Stimpy episodes. Also, as a contested prod, Pixie King/Aloha Höek needs to be undeleted - I'd ask the admin who did it, but s/he's on wikibreak. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Cortex Command (http://www.datarealms.com) is definitely a notable game, which could be released as complete without disapproval. Irishguy claims that because the game is still being expanded on, it it not notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishguy#Cortex_command has the debate. Austonst 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Todd Goldman accusations of plagiarism. Malkinann 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 12 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:CSD#A7 90.152.2.211 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) The administrator that deleted this article refuses to condsider undeleting "as it is the second time..." The administrator also states that his decision to delete was because "someone marked that article for speedy deletion and he agreed ..." The first time this article was deleted was due to begginers errors (my mistake). I changed the article to confirm to Wikipedia's rules. I spent time & effort creating the article. If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me what, but allow me to change it and not blindly delete it. This is from the Administrator's Talk: Hi Wknight94. You have deleted the page PNMsoft (reason (WP:CSD#A7)) PNMsoft is an article about a real company and does assert the importance or significance of its subject. It is not controversial nor an advertisment. Could you please undelete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.2.211 (talk • contribs). Someone marked that article for speedy deletion and I agreed and deleted it. See WP:CSD#A7 and WP:N for more information. This is the second time the article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNMsoft) so I am not going to restore it. You can submit a request at WP:DR. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree with you but thank you for your answer.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was deleted for CSD-A7 company. What and why? Speedy deleted earlier for lack of notability, which I corrected and gave references for. I cannot fathom why it has been deleted now, and wish it to be explained and reviewed, as I feel it is unjust. Dbmays 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.vdc-corp.com/Purchase.asp?viewtype=detail&id=1924&pagesection=ehw http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=11313 http://www.heavyreading.com/details.asp?sku_id=780&skuitem_itemid=753&promo_code=&aff_code=&next_url=%2Fdefault.asp%3F http://www.compactpci-systems.com/news/db/?1480 http://www.rtcmagazine.com/home/article.php?id=100653 http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/0107/it-feature-fault-resilient-computing-for-telecom-part2-0107.htm Two of those are market studies that I have physical copies of so I just linked to the study site. --Dbmays 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Diversified Technology was the first to introduce an AdvancedTCA Infiniband CPU Node and Switch, introduced the industry's first AMD Opteron Rev. F based Node in 2007, and is the leading shipper of AdvancedTCA products worldwide." Those three items don't count as "notable"? Dbmays 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The reason that it was deleted was because there was an edit war between the users from the forum. However, there was no actuall post at first. It was simply all the users trying to post random things. However, i have created a elegent post to start with, and i will keep adding to it. However, for me to create internal links n all i will need it up and running. The protection was due to me asking for it to be protected, however i realise now i should have just waited for it to be removed. I will also be contesting for it to be de-protected. Im still new to being a user, not just reader of Wiki. So do forgive me if i have missed a step. K3y-J 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It was deleted under the reason "POV fork". But that's impossible, as it was created 2 days before the article (Maaser Rishon) it is alleged to be a fork of. Maaser Rishon, on the other hand, is a POV fork; its main author (Shirahadasha), admits that the Maaser Rishon article is POV - "the article is ... representing the Orthodox Judaism POV". The Levite Tithe article, on the other hand, comes from this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which aims to be NPOV. Additionally, Shirahadasha (who was the individual which proposed the Levite Tithe afd) changed his view half way through the AFD, and instead asked for the articles to be merged, rather than one of them deleted. For a merge to be possible, the Levite Tithe article needs to be restored. --User talk:FDuffy 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 11 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please forgive me if I mis-dot some of the is and ts, this is my first DRV closing. The decision is: "We can rebuild it. We have the technology." Nominator agrees, by presenting a whole list of good sources. Deleting admin agrees ("Feel free to write a proper article"). Most of the others arguing fiercely here endorse one or the other of those views. That's good enough for government work. Closing, because I humbly propose that we are here to write an encyclopedia, one article at a time, not to make sure that anyone's wrist is thoroughly slapped (and that goes for both sides). Now I'm going to go and write the article using some or all of the sources Mel cited. It should be better in, oh, 4 to 48 hours. I think I am going to undelete the deleted revisions first, but I hope most people agree it doesn't really matter that much, as long as it does get made better. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Hu12 deleted this page due to spam. I aplogize for adding the article which was considered spam and I have rewritten the article using Wikipedia standards. Please consider undeleting this article. Thank you Klachman 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Tom Harrison deleted two pages of which I am the author: Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain, whose bio I was in the process of finishing, under the pretext of non-notoriety. Both the personalities are well known, not only in France but also in English-speaking countries and correspond exactly to the criteria of notoriety imposed by wikipedia. Thank you.Adrienne93 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Problems with the article were resolved, it was re-written and referenced in non-OR style, thus the AFD tag was removed, but it was deleted anyway. (Admin: Please note that the article in the Google cache is the old disputed version) Orgone 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 10 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I do not think this article should have been deleted since it had more than enough sources, facts, good grammar, and tone and was very informative. It was deleted for allegedly being a copy and paste of MySpace Secret Shows when in reality it was a whole 'nother article with another author and more (than enough) information. I do not think this article should have been deleted since it had more than enough sources, facts, good grammar, and tone and was very informative. It was deleted for allegedly being a copy and paste of MySpace Secret Shows when in reality it was a whole 'nother article with another author and more (than enough) information. Martini833 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Since you're an admin and i think you believe MySpace Events is a completely different valid article then can you bring it back?Martini833 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. (to above comment by vendetta) Martini833 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as i can see the page is much much better than before and does not sound like an ad (look at the first attempt and you will see what they meant with an advertisement tone) but for now it looks great especially after vendetta fixed it. And if its soooooooooo bad as you say FIX IT! 65.11.27.42 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion but i dont think so at all. Why doesnt someone step up to write it less as an advertisement. Deleting it would be a waste of an article (and the writers time). Everyone who says its an ad and doesnt step up to try and rewrite it is a hypocrite. Martini833 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Overturn and delete - leaving aside the dueling psychobabble over the validity within the psychiatric community over the utility of the word "psychopath," the point still stands that the article suffers from fatal WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. The most ardent defenders of keeping the article resorted by and large to arguments like "At least in films, there's usually pretty litle doubt if someone is a psychopath" and "Could anyone deny that most of the characters listed in the article are psychopaths?" and "It is utterly beyond reasonable doubt, in many cases, whether a film character is a psychopath in accordance with the usual dictionary definition of the word." A list article whose inclusion standard is premised on there being little or no doubt in the mind of an editor that a subject should be on the list in the absence of any source is the essence of a WP:NPOV violation and arguments from that standpoint should be discounted, especially in the face of at least one of the people making it expressing his belief that a character that in one editor's opinion belongs should be deleted. The essay portions of the article are completely lacking in sources and appear to be a textbook case of original research. The arguments offered in favor the article do not address the policy violations. The article should be deleted. Otto4711 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I cannot find or obtain enough information to know why this was deleted and protected. I and another user have attempted to contact Slim Virgin (talk · contribs) about the reason for the deletion/protection. Dextropropoxyphene links to Darvon cocktail, so it's not as if there is no relevant extant discussion. The deletion log lists speedy deletions and says "dangerous" (unless I'm mistaken, the Wiki policy on censorship does not allow for that as a valid reason for deletion), but I don't know if that's the full story. I am filing this review not in an attempt, necessarily, to get the page restored, but to find out the full story. Greener grasses (talk · contribs) is the interested party on behalf of whom I am filing this request. MalcolmGin 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 9 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Undelete - I am not sure why this was ever deleted by Premeditated Chaos (User:PMC). If the reason was "listcruft" than I beg to differ. Although, Boston Slang may seem to be of interest to people in Boston, The movie "The Departed" (the Acadamy Award Winner for best picture this year) had many Boston Slang terms being thrown around in the dialogue, so the interest has just peaked to an international scale, and this article may be extremely useful to those folks (and there are millions of them), trying to understand what Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Matt Damon, or Leonardo Dicaprio are saying. Oh, and there is a sequel scheduled for production. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.117.21.7 (talk • contribs).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was made to complement MySpace Events which was getting too long so I made a page for it. I think it should be reposted as it is one of the many LIst pages.65.11.27.42 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you get it this is just another list out of the many on wikipedia. it's just an aid. GET THE PICTURE!!!!!!!!! Martini833 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The game is played by over 300,000 people and the Dutch version (Online Soccer Manager) is played by even more people. It was deleted for being biased to OFM. I can redo it to make it neutral. Michaelmcardle 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was unfairly deleted. The recent edit made to PROVE Upfunk Creek as a notable Australia band was ignored. Either restore or provide me with the article to further edit it to wikipedia standards--Shmonia 05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is an interesting DRV, so bear with me. Simply, I closed this debate as delete as, after reading and re-reading the entire thing, I was of the opinion that the keep opinions were far weaker ("bad faith nom" was used a couple of times, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as well, for example), and generally they neglected to respond to the WP:NPOV and WP:OR arguments in a satisfactory fashion. However, that appears to be my opinion only, which is where the trouble starts. Subheadings number 24, 25 and 30 in User talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/30, as well as a thread on ANI (under "questionable deletion", will be archived soon) is the strong dissent. However, these users refused to come here (or have forgotten to), and as I have noted in those sections in my archive and on ANI, I will not be changing my close, nor expanding on it. So, I bring it here, for a definitive response. Naturally, I endorse my own deletion, but I'm sick of people whinging at my talk page after I've already said I won't entertain any more trolling/discussion on the matter, so I bring it here to force them to argue with the primary focus on process (ie. my interpretation of the debate). Can I ask we stear away from relisting it, because, put frankly, we're just going to end up with the same AfD debate in round two. Undelete, or endorse, are the only real options here. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 8 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was supposedly deleted as inflammatory under WP:SOAP. The argument was that it sets a dangerous precedent to allow it. Delete that page, and you need to delete Category:Wikipedians who support the United States, Category:Wikipedians who support Western Saharan independence, Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations, and Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War, among many others. In fact, almost every article at Category:Wikipedians by politics would have to go. Unless the consensus is that any category expressing support for a country, region, or political movement needs to be deleted, this category needs to be undeleted. To leave all the rest and remove the Israeli one only reeks of Anti-Semitism Oren0 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Large print Wikipedia was a project that was called both humorous and nonsense. Yet it was a supposed to help the elderly. At least where I come from many of these people have poor vision and usually do not have a computer so they must go somewhere else like the local library. Many of the Web Browsers in these places do not have the text-zoom feature and thus a larger font Wikipedia is needed and I made it . It took a long time to get the project started and rewrite its two articles and write the instructions for creating a large print article. Neither this comment or Large print Wikipedia were written as jokes. Thank You very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P2me (talk • contribs).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Received notification that page was marked for prod delete, but was traveling and never had the opportunity to address the errors. I have no idea what the problems were, but worked very hard on that page and would like the opportunity to at least review the page so that I can avoid the errors in the future even if I can't rescue this entry. Im not the guy 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AFD nomination of this article was frivolous, and was created by a vandal (see [133], for example). The article was deleted against a majority of established users who favored keeping it, without any explanation whatsoever. If we are to invoke the theory that "AFD is not a vote" in the deletion of articles, then surely the closing administrator should provide an explanation as to why the article was deleted. John254 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Nonsensical result, not within closer discretion. If Quarl thinks that, despite clear consensus to delete on an afd, specific, non-notable company names should be arbitrarily redirected to their type of business, thereby doing spammers' work for them, he should express that opinion on the afd just like anybody else so that the argument can be refuted as the idiocy it is. —Cryptic 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was speedily deleted as possible advertising. As it happens, I wrote the article and really don't know much about the company, so I used their web page as one of my main sources. Considering their signature product is endorsed by a major American TV chef (Rachael Ray), would it not be prudent to at least restore it and put it through AfD rather than speedying it? It seems like it could be rewritten to not look like advertising. Haikupoet 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted by an administrator, who cited BLP concerns. I believe this was an overreaction. The offending sections could have been removed, and proper citations added for the rest of the article (indeed, much of the article was already sourced). The CHA is a noteworthy far-right organization in Canada, and its article should be restored and improved. CJCurrie 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 7 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like this page to be unprotected from recreation and then restored for the following notability:
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted as being an image that also existed on Commons [135]. Commons recently deleted it as a copyvio [136] but Jimbo has described it as a "free image" [137] and he's always right, right? Nardman1 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Overturn and delete - nominator wrongly closed as no consensus. The !vote count was 2-1 in favor of deletion and the keep reasons basically amounted to "there are other articles like this one" and "without this article people will add bad stuff to the main article." These are not compelling reasons to keep in the face of 66% in favor of deletion. Otto4711 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Okay, so this page was speedied in 2006, overturned here some time later, speedied again, overturned again, and AfD'd. The weighting of arguments, frankly, was done poorly - standards were met across the board as demonstrated, did not violate any important policies. Overturn and undelete, there's simply no consensus for deletion here whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC) badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
PESWiki is about free energy Altermike 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Still in Modification Process Vagyoga 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I told several times that I was new for making a Page. I have interest in
Thanks to all whether making garbage of my first Wiki-article or giving suggestion so that I may improve this article. --Vagyoga 05:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closing administrator chose to close this image as keep, because apparently things like this are just swept under the rug. [145] [146]. This image fails fair use in any number of ways, including not having proper source data, merely being used to illustrate what the book looks like with no critical commentary, no rationale as to how this is irreplaceable with a free (or more free) image (take a picture of the author at a book signing for instance), no copyright data. Uploader has had more than adequate notice to add this information, making it eligible for speedy deletion under csd I7. Nardman1 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 6 April 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The user Shimeru deleted this entire entry for no discernible reason on April 5, 2007 — the article proper was entirely fact-checked and accurate. Right next to the entry in the Deletion Log, s/he only listed the word "prod," which renders the article eligible for restoration if another contributor so desires it. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closing administrator closed it as no-concensus, nevertheless I feel that the AfD was treated as a vote rather than a discussion. 1- No proof whatsoever was brought into the discussion proving the usage of the term "Turkish settlement" in the English usage - (among one of the examples I cited, such a search in the BBC News web-site returned zero hits [147] - whereas the term "Israeli settlement has an established usage in the English language. 2- No sources were brought attesting to the meaning of the term "Turkish settlement" 3- Nearly all impartial editors agreed that it was a WP:FORK of the Cyprus dispute article, and numerous administrators voted for deletion. 4- The article is in a mess, with no clear indication of what it is talking about, what its title means (thus WP:OR) issues and what should be done with it. 5- The article was created by a user who has only six edits, four of them on that article. In my nomination I raised the WP:OR issues, and expressly said that any meaningful content should be merged to Cyprus dispute instead of getting deleted. 6- I believe that the listing of this article in Greece and Turkey related deletion pages was detrimental to the discussion and therefore clouded the evaluation of the closing administrator - I would like an additional review to see if the WP:OR-title and WP:FORK issues have been dealt with, to see if any sources brought that attest to the usage of such a term in English, and whether this article shouldn't be merged to the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article has been rewritten: meets the demands in original AfD for out-of-universe perspective, citations, removal of original research. Michael Sanders 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No consensus for deletion
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
To restore older edit history prior to re-creation. Both look like speedied after emptied. Neither went through CFD. See
for related discussions. - Privacy 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
cache]|AfD) Subject is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed. Greenshed 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
improved notability and layout Iyenweyel 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 5 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The argument given by closing admin that maxzine.co.in is an online magazine is incorrect. It is a print magazine with an online version. Hence argument of low legitimacy is incorrect. The closing admin has accepted this mistake on my User page and asked me to go for deletion review. Also there were only 2 Delete comments (including the nominator) versus 3 legitimate Keep comments. Also the 2 Delete comments were posted before I added the external references for notability and hence should not be given due weightage. Based on the above facts, I request undeletion of the page. Dhshah 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
{{{Appears notable}}} It was improved substantially since the proposed deletion and quoted 30 different accurate references. It was completely balanced with the counter point of view. Teabing-Leigh 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Furthermore, after improvement more people wanted it kept or merged than deleted.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Appears notable: [150] Λυδαcιτγ 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 4 April 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Vanity article LifeStar 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not a valid reason to delete page Dashfan00 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie was deleted based upon a strict interpretation of WP:CSD#R2. However, I accrued consensus on the criteria for speedy deletion talk page that such redirects (i.e., from a shortcut pseudo-namespace) to user pages were fine. This nomination is merely a way to see if such consensus works for everyone, works specifically in this case, and can be enforced. GracenotesT § 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I do not believe that the debate indicated that a community consensus had been reached. Yes, certainly, more people advised a "delete" than did a "keep", but the substance of the debate indicates not consensus, but a fundamental philosophical division between those who are ideologically predisposed to delete any and all so-called "trivia" articles, and those who have a more relaxed attitude towards them. I think that dichotomy runs throughout the Wikipedia community, but I also believe that the former attitude is more prevalent among those most likely to become involved in AfD debates, and the other backstage processes of running Wikipedia. However, that fact that this eliminationist philosophy is overrepresented in this small slice of the community doesn't speak to the attitude of the community as a whole. If you were to ask, I'm fairly certain that more people would agree with the idea that on Wikipedia "everything that's not (explicitly) forbidden is allowed", while those dogmatically predisposed to elimination of certain types of material believe that "everything that's not allowed is forbidden." Given this, it's hard for me to understand how the closing administrator could reach the conclusion that a consensus had been reached. I suggest that a community consensis was not reached, and that the article be reinstated. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Insufficient Notability After this discussion was closed, Kinslayer proposed to change his opinion. Asked if he could review new drafts, but did not receive answer. Believe notability of Frederique Constant as Watch Manufacturer was established and accepted, please see draft and [[158]].
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Seems to have been speedied. Reason given as "recreation", however, I was not aware of any previous version of the page, created it completely from scratch, and fail to see how it merits deletion. — Swpb talk contribs 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was deleted for CSD G5 which is Pages created by banned users while they were banned. The user who created this page is unrelated, but the page was deleted because Sock Buster added to it. However, the Sock Buster account was in fact not a sockpuppet of the said banned user, and was in fact a legitimate sock of mine. I am requesting undeletion of the pages created by Sock Buster and and unblock of the account. —KingIvan 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
My interpretation of this debate is that we should leave the Word Association sandbox game, and remove the subpages as being a violation of Wikipedia is not a social network. The so-called Sandboxians re-created them a few times, and now I see that Grue has taken it upon himself to undelete all the variant games and the template which promotes the variant games. There are a number of pages including: If someone would like to spend a moment convincing me of the encyclopaedic merit of inventing and promoting, particularly through use of a template, novel variants of word association, I'd be grateful. I can't say I'm especially happy that I only found out about Grue's undeletions when he told me not to delete them again; he did not tell me he had undelete dthem the first time, so I nuked the bluelinks in my deletion log because the "sandboxians" had re-cerated them under "much better titles" a few times since. Grue undeleted them again and left me a note saying not to "unilaterally" delete them again. I do not consider this particularly constructive. I am open to debate, and deletion review is here to challenge a deletion. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 3 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 2 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 1

