Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 30 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The page was deleted because Adam Cuerden thought one section of the page was copyrighted, In reality the single section paraphrased the source and the terminology and wording was vaguely similar. The person concluded that if a few sentences were copyrighted then the entire page must be copyrighted(despite it's being several years old) so he deleted the entire page without even bothering to find other instances of copyright or discussing it on the articles talk page after having removed the suspected content. The user has been addressed here on the articles talk page [[1]] Wikidudeman (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the speedy tags should go off, and the offending paragraphs temporarily moved to the talk page, and then have the editors discuss it. Deleting it doesn't seem right. enochlau (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Can this request be removed since the problem has been solved? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 30 June 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 Non-notable Advert with insufficient sources. I arugue that sources were indeed missing, but Article was not non-notable, and not an advert. Maybe should be restored along with Pullyapantsup, Australia (possibly merged) and tagged with {{Unreferenced}} Kc4 16:56, 30 June 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 concern here is that the discussion was speedily closed after notability guidelines created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket were cited. However, these guidelines do not appear in Wikipedia:Notability, either as guidleines or a proposal. Instead, they are confined to the Wikiproject page, and appear to have been decided on by Wikiproject participants. Notability proposals put forward by Wikiprojects which are listed under WP:NOTE would be a different case, as then the whole community would get a chance to take part in the discussion. However, confining the discussion to a Wikiproject means most people are unaware of proposals, even though they could end up being cited in AfD. This seems to me to be something of a walled garden. I'd say that only notability/inclusion criteria that come about via discussions on Wikipedia:Notability pages should be cited as consensus decisions in AfD debates. Therefore, I propose the article be relisted in AfD Lurker 14:44, 30 June 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 in 2005 with the following reason: '{{db-nocontext}}Dictator in algeria for 1 week'}. Provided the page content itself isn't ground for deletion I think the give reason alone is spurious. Also, two pages link to this page. meco 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 29 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Delete due to infamatory and defamation of character links and irrevelance to modern history I am requesting the reconsideration of the deletion of Mark Bellinhaus' Wikipedia page. Not only are the links that are attached to his profile filled with misguided and hateful propaganda but I cannot see the relevance that this person has to the modern world. It is a waste of Wikipedia's space and a serious embarrassment to the integrity of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.50.16 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2007 |
| 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7. However it seems to me that an article about a charitable foundation which states that it has created and runs two schools, a hospital, and an Eye institute; that it has existed for over one hundred years; and that it is "an important spiritual destination of Northern India" at least asserts the significance of that institution. This would need sources and probably expansion to pass an AfD, but I don't think a speedy deletion is warranted. Overturn the speedy, and optionally send to AfD, to allow sources to be found if they can be. DES (talk) 21:27, 29 June 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7, and salted to prevent recreation. The article, as it was before deletion, asserts that "Joey skates in local and national competitions and has been invited to skate at the AST Dew Tour in both 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he became the youngest skateboarder in the world to perform a 540 at the Dew tour." and "Joey skates at competitions around the United States". The article as it was written would require both cleanup and sourcing to pass an AfD, but it seems to me that those are pretty clear "claims of significance" -- sporting competition in any sport at a national level is a pretty good indication of significance, and if sourced, will normally pas WP:BIO. Therefore i don't think A7 applied. Overturn. DES (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
My plan was to just make an entry and later add supporting details but I never had the opportunity to do that because it was immediately deleted (within minutes). I would be happy to do a detailed page and submit it. Is there an area to submit to for approval? This is all very new to me. Thank you! How do we get it unprotected so I can do that? What is Afd? Also....there are videos on YouTube from two of the stations that interviewed him, along with pro skater Bucky Lasek (also from Maryland)- WBAL TV and 98 Rock Radio |
| 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7. The article was about a stunt performer. It said "Oakley has doubled for many of today's top actors including Paul Walker, Josh Lucas, Chris Evans, and Josh Duhamel." And the IMDB lists over 30 stunt roles for Lehman, some in quite notable films such as Snakes on a Plane, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Timeline, and The Fast and the Furious. I think that working as a stunt double for multiple notable actors is at least a claim of notability. Overturn and send to AfD DES (talk) 20:52, 29 June 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I think that "He shot to fame for putting down caste based riots in southern Tamil Nadu with iron hands" and "He was awarded with the 'Communal Harmony Award' by the Governor for his efforts." and "The Periyar University, Salem in Tamil Nadu has appointed him as the Honorary Visiting Faculty" are at least assertions of significance or importance. it might well be that this article would have PoV problems -- it might even be that it would be deleted at an AfD, but no one can be sure of that in advance. A good article might result. Overturn speedy deletion. DES (talk) 20:44, 29 June 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 clearly asserts notability. I tried to contest this prod, but Spartaz refused to undelete the article, stating that it was a7 - but it's not: it clearly asserts notability. A7 says nothing about sourcing anyway, though I can include some: Polish newspaper, independent South African site calling it a "top Polish band" (I can look for others, but I speak no Polish). The archived version of the page can be found here. 64.178.96.168 20:40, 29 June 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. |
|
A deletion discussion was never permitted. Event happened today (29 Jan) and both of the AfD discussions were speedily closed today. First was closed with just two comments (lasted just 14 minutes since start to closure). Second with mere four comments (lasted just 13 minutes since start to closure). I feel this is a minor event that is worthy of a wikinews article but not a wikipedia article. -- Cat chi? 20:26, 29 June 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 the closing admin followed policy in deleting this image. His closing comments indicated that he deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on his own opinion that the image violated WP:NFCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate NFCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed NFCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on NFCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." This was not followed. There were disagreements as to whether this image passed both NFCC #2 and NFCC #8, but I can't see how anyone could in good faith come to the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I informed the closing admin of this, but he does not appear willing to revisit his decision. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:02, 29 June 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 not have been deleted because it passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC due to Andy McCulloch's membership in the band. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:50, 29 June 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. |
|
Process error. This category was deleted on 25 June following a deletion discussion in which only the nominator himself had commented. This was probably because few people knew about it, as there was no notice on the main article UMIST of the category, as suggested in Wikipedia guidelines for category deletions [5]. I was one of the main contributors to the deleted category, and I only found out about the proposed deletion a few hours after it had taken place. Previously suggestions regarding articles and categories related to UMIST or Manchester University have always attracted vigorous and knowledgable debate on the appropriate talk pages. I therefore request that the category deletion is reversed and relisted, with notification on the UMIST article page so that others can join the discussion. Although I'm asking for a relisting on the grounds of process, I would be equally happy with the categrory deletion simply being overturned, as I feel there is no prospect of reaching a consensus on this deletion. I myself strongly oppose the deletion of this category and there are solid reasons for retaining it. (The nominator has been kind enough to chat with me about those reasons on my user talk page - See [6] ) Dodo64 13:17, 29 June 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. |
|
VFD_question Was poking through my watchlist to clean it out a bit, and remembered this article: Danny Sveinson, which was deleted back in 2005. I submit that the subject is notable, for reasons that I state in the original incarnation, but which were later removed in the version of the article presented in its VFD. Furthermore, it appears that the old version of this article was never examined for the purposes of the VFD. It's worth noting that I'm not really heavily invested in this article anymore, but I'm curious to find out if that version of the article would provide notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 29 June 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. |
|
SENSIBLE_NEW_ARTICLE -->I am Adam Long from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and I'd like to write a new article about myself. I know that it's not the done thing, but it looks like people have written a lot of rubbish under 'Adam Long' and I'd like to write a short piece detailing my work with Reduced Shakespeare and post-Reduced Shakespeare (Raindance award winning film, comedy for Lucasfilm, radio work for BBC Radio Four). Best, ajaxsemaphor Ajaxsemaphor 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 28 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Just want to make this a redirect to ScrewAttack Buc 15:05, 28 June 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 are plenty of worthy articles on internet. G.ho.st has been reviewed in Red Herring, PC Magazine, Info world and thousands of Blogs. G.ho.st notability now is very high it returns nearly 120,000 Google results. Rami Abdulhadi 09:16, 28 June 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. |
| : (restore|cache|AfD)
This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I don't think that a governmental agency fits under "people, groups, companies and web content" to which A7 is supposed to be limited. I don't know if this would survive an AfD or not, but IMO a speedy delete is not the best route for articles such as this. Clear evidence of notability might emerge at an AfD. Furthermore, from a very brief google search, it appears that the Commission was involved in a major class action suit over how cable television companies could or could not charge late fees, an action that influenced subsequent state-wide legislation. A scholarly account of the case is at this rand corp site, and a report on the legislation that refers to the Commission is at this state senate site. The site of the [http://www.secctv.org/downloads/about_SECC.pdf Sacramento Educational Cable Consortium] referred to the Commission, and this Multichannel news story discusses action by the commission on possible content restriction. of cable programming. In all I think the likelihood of a valid and useful article resulting is high. Overturn and expand. The deleting admin was requested to consider undeleting this -- no response has been made so far. DES (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 27 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Like many other articles, this was subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and protected from recreation. The first version of the article was deleted for the same reason, but the second article provided ample evidence of notability, scope, and significance. The admin appears to have interpreted the 100 Hour Board to be a cork notice board rather than an online service similar to Google Answers. The Board is cited in multiple print media sources and websites, including Wikipedia itself. This open letter to Wikipedia details more articles in print media and online citations. Overturn as improper speedy deletion, or alternatively, list on AfD for proper discussion. - Peter 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, most student organization websites are not significant, but the few that are should have articles. DGG 14:23, 28 June 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 Station Seddonism 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC) In the original deletion discussion , that I was not aware of at the time, the main argument for deletion seemed to be based on the error that the station started in 2001, when it is actually one of the oldest in the country, and that a user believed that no student radio station merited inclusion, and on assumptions by users. While broadcasting on LPFM, this is to a significant geographical area (not the several metres mentioned), as well as online, and on regular citywide broadcasts to a potential audience of a large City. Membership of the station alone is in the region of 50-ish people each year made up of the current students. Many alumni (which include, apparently, Thom Yorke) have gone on to work in media professions (this could be an area for expansion). This NME student guide to Exeter University gives massive prominance to Xpression FM, which reflects its standing as a significant part of campus life. A 360 degree photo of Studio 1 was recently carried out, which should help show this isn't an operation run out of a bedroom. On this Wikipedia entry this is a group of some of the many student radio stations that have not been deleted. I am not arguing that they should - rather that this station seems to have been singled out. In addition there are pages for apparently hundreds of campus radio stations worldwide. Perhaps the article could be tiedied up - but this can't be done if it is deleted. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work as a useful resource - not every article is going to be of interest to every person.
Seddonism 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction to the above: "now on the regular broadcast MWBand" - this is how it started out, but is now on permanent LPFM. In my opinion there seemed to be only a couple of informed comments in the original AFD, such as from "tdg1986", the rest were mostly blanket statement against student radio, or errors about how old it is, how far it broadcasts etc etc. Anyway, I can't see myself winning you over - if anyone can provide me with the text from the page before it was deleted then that would be appreciated. (Seddonism 17:45, 28 June 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 doesn't really matter what any admin thinks or where it is, T1 does not apply to userspace. End of argument. It just doesn't. Also nominating:
|
| 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:Kurykh closed AfD2 as delete, but I believe there was no consensus and that every delete argument was sufficiently refuted. The closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means (there are concurrent discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT). It's therefore important to explain exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I interpret the entire discussion as being based on personal judgment calls, resulting in a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines. More people holding one opinion in this case is not indicative of consensus; consider that AfD2 is merely an extended rehash of AfD1 (no consensus) with a different sample of editors. Kurykh told me that some of the keep arguments border on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was referring to a fundamental property common among all encyclopedia articles, and I used as basic examples lists that are not even in popular culture articles. If there's any legitimate application of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is it. See my final paragraph below for an illegitimate application. The article certainly looks like a laundry list, but the format of the article is not an inherent fault: it can be converted to prose, and any "trivial" mentions can easily be removed. Throughout the debate, I repeatedly encouraged other editors who take issue with this to remove any unsourced items, which should take one minute at most (I did not do so because I was continually working to source those items, and removing them myself then adding them back later would defeat any chance of collaboration). No one did remove the "junk", but still a brief glance will allow anyone to see that a decently-sized portion of text would remain even if they are removed, a good size for an article that has no need for merging. Some editors advocated such a selective merge, which would require a redirect and does not constitute a bolded delete. The closing statement also implies that a merge is possible. However, as pointed out in the AfD, merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary given many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with WP:SUMMARY. Note: The following paragraph is obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it to argue for restoration, merely pointing out a relevant practical consequence.
|
| 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. |
|
^demon deleted it on June 25 because he/she thought it was unused, apparently unaware of the fact the image was being used on Lemony Snicket since June 21st. CyberGhostface 19:17, 27 June 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7 "Biographical article that does not assert significance". But the article (as it was when deleted) says that the group has twice "toured throughout the East, South, & Western United States". if sourced, that alone is enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and even if not sourced should be enough of an "assertion of significance" to avoid an A7 speedy delete. Overturn and list on AfD for a proper assesment of notability by consensus. DES (talk) 16:32, 27 June 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7. While IMO this article would need improvement and better sourcing to pass an AfD, i think that "He anchors Eyewitness News at 5, 6 and 11 p.m., the top-rated newscast in Indainapolis" is at least a claim of significance. Overturn as an improper speedy, and optionally list on AfD. DES (talk) 16:16, 27 June 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. |
|
Extremely useful and significant website Sm8900 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Was deleted with the note that it did not assert significance. However, there was an onoing discussion at the talk page, where I indicated I would provide more material. I did indicate that the deletion was contested. clearly, there is reason to include it. it is very significant and unique among websites of thst type. with more time, more facts and soruces can be added, as I indicated at the article talk page. i feel this deletion was very unwarranted. thanks. --Sm8900 15:26, 27 June 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. |
|
Four Reigns was deleted with the logged reason "see WP:OR". But Original research is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I agree that this would need sourcing and cleanup to remain for long, it appears that parts of it, at least, are OR. Parts appear to be a factual description of a book. While the book might not be notable, a google search on "Four Reigns" Kukrit Pramoj gets several hundred hits. Also, as the author Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand, he is clearly notable and his novels are likely to be so. This is the sort of thing that can be discovered more easily if possibly non-notable articles are not speedy deleted (when they do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria) but are given a little bit of time, Rather than having new speedy criteria made up to get them deleted quickly. Such speedy deletions prevent debate and the prime virtue of wikipedia: "More eyes". Overturn and cleanup. The deleting admin has been requested to undelete, but has not chosen to respond. DES (talk) 13:59, 27 June 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 has been deleted before for being composed of OR and being non-notable. As of this writing, this group is now notable and verifiable. It has been featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, PC Format Magazine, PC Zone Magazine, and Computer Games Magazine. Please keep a clear mind, don't let your opinion of this group or the number of times it has been deleted cloud your thoughts on this. Android Mouse 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Could someone please point me to the last discussion on this? What I had read, it was closed because of OR and being non-notable, neither of these are applicable now, so I'm wondering what I've missed. --Android Mouse 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like we've been a year since this last had a full hearing, and if there's new sources we may change our conclusion. It worked for Jeffree Star Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 27 June 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 new information regarding this AfD process.
Overturn and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:16, 27 June 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. |
|
"Political Spam" Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Page was deleted "COI spam by owner of politcal party", however while it was created on the behalf of the President, whose account this is, it is hardly spam as much as it is a recognition of our status as equal to comparable movements who are similarly referenced in Wikipedia, including, but not limited to Australian Young Labor and the Young Liberals (Australia). Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 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. |
|
Page was deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, but it wasn't advertising. The article was about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado, GoLite. The company is of similar size to other companies that have articles, such as CamelBak and Kelty, and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, such as the article on Hydration packs, the article on rock climber Ray Jardine, and Primal Quest. Lucien Dray 01:08, 27 June 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 the creator of the Andrew Lande article and upon returning from my trip to Europe to my surprise the article was deleted. Maybe I didn't write up enough sources the first time but the guy is in fact encyclopedia worthy. I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People) First the broad notability Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary. Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc. Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes. Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS partly where it passes
And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources. Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)
(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)
(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.) Andman8 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 26 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted as "blatant advertising" instead of being reverted to a neutral version, one of which can still be found in the google cache [18] Kappa 22:52, 26 June 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 a better understanding of necessity to reference everything in posting, would like to have the opportunity to create a new page from scratch which is strictly informational, not advertising Comet111 21:23, 26 June 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 should be undeleted, as it now sites its sources. James3uk 19:59, 26 June 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 six times and protected in January 2007. The band is now releasing an album on notable label Fueled by Ramen, and has a respectable Allmusic entry. Note also article regarding nationwide tour. Would like to have the article Unsalted because band has enough press to establish notability. Chubbles 18:26, 26 June 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 consensus reached. Also article rewritten within Afd timeframe for notability but did not receive any new reviews after the article was rewritten. Should be undeleted and at minimum relisted for consensus to be reached. 83.88.224.53 11:22, 26 June 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. |
|
Category:Australian football (soccer) players was renamed yesterday. This action happened without any imput from the Australian football community on wikipedia. I am requesting this decision be reversed. Players, fans, clubs and parts of the media refer to the sport as Football. User:Shalom started the process and he has said here :
Tancred 11:11, 26 June 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. |
|
Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson failed to cite appropriate or valid reasons for speedy deletion, and has since all but refused to discuss the matter further. Image was originally deleted for Fair Use violation, but the image seemed to have satisfied all criteria of WP:FUC. Deletion was also rationalized by redudancy and resolution issues, but the image still satisfied all criteria of WP:IUP and WP:CSD. An archive of the discussion (or lack thereof) can be found here. Drewcifer3000 08:37, 26 June 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. |
|
BatchMaster Software is the leader as far as formula/recipe based process manufacturers are concerned. There are many companies listed in the 'List of Software Companies' that are less notable than BSI. I admit that I am guilty of placing our article on Wikipedia repeatedly, but I was making changes to the article every time based on the comments on the talk page or the primary cause of deletion. I honestly believe that considering the position of BatchMaster ERP in the world of process manufacturing, having an article on BSI is justified. Rahulkhare 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will completely re-write the article. A humble request to please unprotect the page. My assurances that my version of the page will never see light again. Rahulkhare 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mike, I really appreciate this. Will do as you've suggested. It might take me upto a week to create a new page. Will this thread be active until then, so that I may place my request to the editors once again? As you may have noticed, I am fairly new at this. Do you think If I removed the company infobox from the original page, it will be less offensive? Rahulkhare 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) I have created the subpage as suggested by Mike User:Rahulkhare/BatchMaster Software. Please provide your feedbacks if any changes are desired. I am prepared to make any change as required, but humbly request the editors to give specific suggestions for improvement. Please let me know the next step in the process. Rahulkhare 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
HI: I am eagerly waiting for instructions for the course of action. How do I attract the attention of editors to view my sample article so that it may be included as a real article. Rahulkhare 12:25, 2 July 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. |
|
Why did this page get deleted as if it were "blatant advertising?" This makes very little sense considering it was three sentences long, one giving the title and web location of the magazine, a second stating when the publication was born and a third naming the two parties who founded the publication. I feel like a disservice to the wikipedia community has been made here and ask that it is corrected. Wishtank isn't even a commercial magazine, it is run by volunteers and sells absolutely nothing. What would this wikipedia entry be blatantly advertising? Garrettheaney 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, what is it about the article that you consider and advertisement? The information and language are unbiased and straight forward. It makes little sense to me why anyone would find the article inappropriate for wikipedia. How does the short Wishtank entry differ in form from any other wikipedia entry giving information on a magazine or resource? Wishtank is a voluntary service and doesn't monetize in any form — this claim of "blatant advertising" is simply untrue.
You could see it for what it is, an entry holding basic, unbiased information on a magazine. Is there a policy regarding the length of time a publication has to be in circulation before it becomes a valid source for wikipedia? I was not aware of any such policy, and if there is, I sincerely apologize. It's actually funny, that you noticed a third attempt of the wishtank entry, and you inaccurately describe that as an "advert" deletion. The reason given for the third deletion was that it didn't do enough to "sell" the magazine as an important source. This seems contradictory, considering you are here saying that that sort of "advertising" is not permittable. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you do in keeping Wikipedia free from advertisement, but any reasonable person would see that the entry made for Wishtank is purely informational, without any of the "blatant advertising" you site in your deletion and endorsement of deletion. You are providing a disservice to the Wikipedia community and wrongfully censoring information. But I digress, you have the authority to do so and it is done. It's just disheartening from my perspective to see an objective, informational entry be labeled "blatant advertising." Go look at other magazine entries on wikipedia and tell me how they differ (other than their duration on the news stand, which again, I wasn't aware was a qualifying factor).
|
| 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 deleted as Patent nonsense, and it simply was nothing of the sort -- Patent nonsense has a very restricted meaning. I undeleted as per WP:DP#Deletion review which says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." But having undelted, I find that it was in mid-afd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Game), which discussion was speedy closed by the speedy deletion. I want some support in undoing this close, and reactivating the AfD. DES (talk) 06:23, 26 June 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 deleted with the log comment "CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance (emphasis added by me). Now of course A7 does not extend to "subjects" in general, and this is an article about a pseudonym. Furthermore, even if A7 extended to such articles, the assertion that this pseudonym was used by the very notable Eric Clapton is IMO at least a claim of notability. Now at an AfD, this might well be merged into Eric Clapton, or perhaps even deleted. Or it might be kept and improved. Overturn as improperly speedy-deleted. DES (talk) 05:50, 26 June 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 deleted under WP:CSD#G1 (Patent nonsense). It is clearly not patent nonsense -- i have no trouble understanding what the article says and means. (Note that PN is limited to content that "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.") Liam Hunt is an article about a fictional character. The character might be non-notable, and too much of the article is written in an in-universe style, and there is too little real-world context. Those are all things that could be fixed, or if judged non-fixable, might lead to deletion at an AfD. But none of them, IMO, is a good reason for a speedy deletion. Overturn so that other editors have a chance to improve the article and, if need be, debate its deletion. The deleting admin has been asked to consider undeleting this, and has not responded, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. DES (talk) 05:46, 26 June 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 deleted this under WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance or importance). I think that the text "She and Wallengren both received together a "star" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for their work on the radio." in the article constitutes an assertion of significance sufficent that it should not be deleted via A7. Whether it would/will survive an AfD is of course another matter. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, avd has made no response, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. Overturn as invalid A7 speedy delete. DES (talk) 05:39, 26 June 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 but speedy deleted with 150K Ghits, deleted without review. There should be a stub there, this never should have been speedied without review. Please check again under the capitalized spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
Yes, but when Google invests in a company it gets "multiple, non trivial coverage" which makes it notable. 150K Google hits and stories in Forbes, New York Times and CNN. How does that get a speedy delete without review? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:46, 26 June 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 this article as a recreation."
This article has a notable subject that has, amongst other things, been responsible for two legislative changes in Texas as a result of her murder - one of which is named for her. Follows is the somewhat lengthy precursor to this "speedy delete." Yes it's me, the anon user who nominated Brian Crecente for deletion. I was debating on nominating her (ed. note: referring to Jennifer Ann Crecete) article as well, but I figured since you added alot to it, I would run it by you first. I feel neither her article or the charity are really notable so I've been thinking about a possible merge of her article and the charity based on her, what are your thoughts? I know you are probably angry about the comments I made in the Brian Crecente afd, so I don't expect your words to be sugar coated. Please speak your mind.64.231.250.116 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I am still consulting with a few other users about the pages we are questioning, we are currently looking for sources. Going to give it another week or two and then a possible rewrite or afd will be dealt. 64.231.250.169 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I have speedy deleted this article as a recreation. I saw that you used the legislation as a justification for moving it back out of User space, but I do not agree that that is enough to overcome the reasoning given at the AFD debate. At this point, as I'm pretty sure you will disagree with my actions, I encourage you to contest this at WP:DRV. Deletion Review is the proper place to try to overturn AFD deletions if the circustances have changed. - [User:TexasAndroid] 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Drew30319 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Drew30319 14:35, 26 June 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 following are the arguments I have made for the undeletion of this article on Encephalon's talk page more than two months ago. I have not received any response from him since making those arguments, and so I must add this deletion review. The former Pizza Corner article, about the landmark in Halifax, Nova Scotia was created by myself, and as I was not active on wikipedia last september when it was deleted, I did not have the opportunity to defend it. The current Pizza Corner article is about a pizza chain in India. While I do agree that this chain deserves its own article, I do not see any reason there should not be a disambiguation page leading to both that and the landmark in Halifax. I have read the AFD Page for the original article, and would disagree with the assertion [the closing admin] made: "Besides, surely such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots—alone reason enough to approach any such write-up with considerable caution. Hence, delete." My response to that would be to ask, what is Times Square if not a moniker for a little spot, just like Pizza Corner? Pizza Corner may not be as widely known, but it is known, at least as well or better than the Armdale Rotary, Scotia Square, Spring Garden Road, Barrington Street, Bud the Spud or The Dingle - all of which undisputedly deserve their own articles. I would therefore like to ask that the article be reinstated, in the location Pizza Corner, Halifax, and that the present Pizza Corner page be changed to a disambiguation page, with the article presently there being moved to Pizza Corner (food chain) Uniqueuponhim 00:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 25 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nominator believed that gender played little role in only a small aspect of the Pokemon franchise, two users came forward with more detailed examples of the significant role this feature plays. supporters of the nominator added little to the discussion, characterizing the categories merely as "over-categorization" with no arguments or reasoning to back them up. The closing admin unilaterally closed the debate when a consensus was clearly not evident. ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:43, 25 June 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 category was closed as delete against a consensus of 30:11 in favor of keeping. The closing admin in his comments retained all of the arguments in favor of deletion (even though they had been contested by several editors) and none of the arguments in favor of keeping. Request DRV on the basis that this was closed in error with no visible consensus to delete and a probable rough consensus to keep Ramdrake 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of categories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that are neutral categories that can help the project. The comments in favor of keeping are addressed by the fact thhat "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can be used for the purpose raised in these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn closing admin's rationale makes no sense. "other similar categories deleted on same basis" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. This was a discussion for these categories and an overwhelming consensus to keep. You can't cite other consensus to override this consensus. -N 00:04, 26 June 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. |
|
I'm not proposing undeletion, but current contributors to the article seem to not have correctly understood the procedure for review. Coren 15:39, 25 June 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 used WP:SNOW with two "votes" for this; eight similar Afd's also closed with SNOW after very little input or time elapsed. John Vandenberg 13:16, 25 June 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No claim of significance or importance). It seems to me that such statements in the article as "one of the richest Sikh farmers in North America" "a leading figure in the Sikh community for the last 20 years". "president of the World Sikh organization" and "founder chairman of the World Kabbadi federation" do constitute an assertion of significance. Obviously better sroucing would be needed for this to survive an AfD, but I think these claims ought to be enough to avoid an A7 speedy. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, but has not responsed, although he responded to two later requests to reconsider speedy deletions with "Please see WP:DRV." DES (talk) 04:51, 25 June 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 deleted with the comment "Biographical article that does not assert significance" four times by the same admin. The admin was asked on his talk page to restore, and has not responded. The article says "Moore co-wrote the true-crime novel Deadly Medicine with ex-husband Dan Reed in the early 80s. The 295-page work went on to become a New York Times best-seller for seven weeks in 1988, and also a NBC TV movie-of-the-week." That is a very celar claim ot notability. I don't see how anyone can think this is an A7 speedy delete. On that basis alone I would be incined to a keep at an AfD, assuminmg that this claim was sourced. But even if some editors might reasonably opt for deletion at an afd, this isn't the kind of "clear-cut" case that speedy deletion is intended for. Overturn deletion. DES (talk) 04:39, 25 June 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. |
|
Rewriting the entire article based on other existing articles Spyware Terminator's page was deleted for reasons of "blatant advertising". Upon comparing what was on the page previously, the information contained was no different from the information contained in Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spysweeper, or Windows Defender. I also rewrote the page following the layout and information of Ad-Aware and that was also deleted. I do not mind rewriting the page from scratch, and working with people to make it look less like an advertisement, assuming it ever did look one. Cableguytk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is my draft which was so nicely deleted:
This layout: 1) does not appear to be advertising to me 2) follows a mesh of the layouts at Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Windows Defender (mostly focusing on Spybot) 3) has a good amount of sources. Unfortunately due to the age of this product (around 1.5yrs), the lack of a hosuehold name like "Ad-Aware", and continuous negative campaigns against the product, including here on Wikipedia, not many other sources are available outside of the ones provided. Please review the entry and let me know your opinions. Cableguytk 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
the "11" links to the Spyware Terminator domain were to cover me should anyone claim that any of it was independent research, since Im always beig flagged for this kind of stuff. I linked to Download.com (which Ad-Aware does), I linked to a couple domains which have awarded the program (Softpedia.com, and Xmaesto.com), and I linked a press release which was about Spyware Terminator's associated former parent company changes in business practices. Other than that, there really isnt much out there worth linking, unless you want me to link up to the plethora of download sites similar to Download.com and Softpedia.com that have reviewed and listed the program. In all, I have links to 4 different independent sources (websearch.com, softpedia, xmaesto, and download.com) By comparison:
Cableguytk 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Akradecki:Why dont you go check Ad-Aware or Spybot or Windows Defender while you are at it and tell me what you think of those articles?
Ok, I'm going to make one more attempt at trying to clearly annunciate for Cableguytk and Sleepm:
Having said all this, and since I'm involved in the discussion so can't exercise admin tools here, with a current tally of 9:1 endorsing deletion, can someone please snow this thing? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
is advertised on that page and it even says it is recommended by Wiki-Security?http://smitfraud.wiki-security.com/wiki/ov_Parasite/Smitfraud/. This is a blatant ad. sleepm 28 June 2007.
|
| 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 closed as a delete on AfD despite only about one third of responders arguing for this option, based apparently only on the opinion of the closing admin. The excuse appears to have been on the grounds of WP:BLP, despite the fact that a) the person concerned is dead and b) if there any grounds that would affect living relatives, neither the closer nor anyone else has suggested what those might be. This was completely out of process. (Edit: Tony has since claimed on IRC that he interpreted this AfD as needing "consensus to keep", evidently due to the odd BLP argument. I've never seen a case like this.) Rebecca 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Multiple government inquests clearly shows an impact that can be considered notable and Riana adequately explains why BLP is not an overriding issue here. --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 25 June 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 deleted as article was poorly written and contained no sources; today in process of rewriting and adding sources found article deleted within 5 minutes of post. Would like new article vetted for AfD at least before auto-delete. Would also like to know if there is some existing protocol for adding models and actresses to Wiki, as well as how to ensure that public access photographs don't keep being deleted due to not knowing the correct protocol for copyrighting the images via Wiki tags? AntiVanity 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 24 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
WMHSMUN is a major conference on the East Coast of the United States; how is it not "notable"? Also this page has existed for several years and has been updated a number of times; it has repeatedly been contested and revised. I don't understand why it was suddenly deleted (apparently with no discussion since those of us who have been writing it and keeping it up-to-date didn't know it was up for deletion until it was already gone).
|
| 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. |
|
Section added yesterday was deleted for no given reason Larryj53 00:19, 25 June 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 given: just poof! Gone ! A full week of gathering info, testing publication, award winning search engine results, edits, code, everything gone. Who will ever know the full extent of the wasted effort. Two administrators took it upon themselves to delete an unfinished work, in the middle of creation. Picaroon9288 will be getting a message from StationNT5Bmedia, but the User_talk at that address specifically says "unavailable" until July. see Picaroon9288 Wafulz deleted another unfinished version of the page. Citing no substantial reason, the User at that desktop began the dictatorial process of sequestoring new knowledge. A message will be soon arriving at that URL also. For more info write User_talk:Wafulz
I agree with DES. Although at the time of the original construction of the article, few references, if any had been included at that point, perhaps the article was not ready to "go live". However, with the accumulation of the work in progress, now it is plainly becoming visible that this is not the work of a single individual, but a collection of many years of creditable & verifiable references. If the article were published by another volunteer, and the article code referred to the proper search engine find ie. "R. Weldon Smith", then perhaps a larger audience would be willing to endorse it as a Wikified encyclopedic article. I would hate to think that all volunteers and contributions are so quickly discarded without discussion. 72.73.136.108 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC) The additions to improve the notability of the article can be found at the following: R. Weldon Smith 72.73.136.108 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC) While in correspondence about this having several other creditable articles that are candidates for encyclopedic content, other than the scientific articles contributed on aspheric lens, non-synchronous transmissions, Immigration Reform, and the PTDA, Wikification for "R. Weldon Smith", the pen name & other folks having made literary contributions should be considered. Before the community reaches a verdict, realize that if the article being constructed is of value to Wikipedia, it's code can be copied from User:StationNT5Bmedia/Sandbox, and re-integrated to it's page.StationNT5Bmedia 00:51, 30 June 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 discussion, side-stepped all protocols. This never even should have qualified as a speedy deletion, and was deleted anyway by someone who obviously did not check their facts.No explanation. Nothing.(Mind meal 19:11, 24 June 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 having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States -N 16:48, 24 June 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 GA process has been improved since it was discussed during the template deletion discussion in March 2006. As for some editors who oppose having metadata templates in Wikipedia, it is already widely used and accepted such as Template:Cleanup, Template:Administrator, and many others. I think it's time to reconsider the deletion of this template. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 24 June 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. |
|
While I respect the right of admins to delete (and to protect) their own user pages and even talk-page archives, the deletion and protection of his talk page makes it tough to communicate information to the user in case there is an emergency, or in case he goofed, especially since he is still showing signs of being an active sysop. That is the reason why I'm questioning the deletion and protection of his primary talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 24 June 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 on AfD, nomination improperly extended (should've been closed as keep after 5 days passed). Grue 12:41, 24 June 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 procedure for deletion jmcw 09:40, 24 June 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 under criterion A1 and/or A3 for WP:CSD. This article had both content and context. Thanks, Navou 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 23 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
personal attack RMc 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC) OK, someone explain this to me. I create an article about The Wyoming Incident, a minor but interesting internet hoax. Several people add to the article; they seem to like it. Then some petulant child named User:Thunderbunny decided he wants to delete it (using such sage reasoning as "it sucks"), gets a few of his buddies to agree with him, and WHAM! it's gone. Huh? Is this the way things work around here...throw a tantrum and you get what you want? I mean, what the hell? RMc 19:32, 23 June 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 claims by the nominator says that my redirect among other redirects aren't "useful or helpful." Others have said that there is "No plausible use." I know for this redirect here, it's the complete opposite of what the nominator claims. This was a very convenient way of writing the project in messages, templates and so on. Kingjeff 14:55, 23 June 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. |
|
well-known, influential, and privately held company that clearly satisfies the notability requirement, documentable sources 867xx5209 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 22 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The admin closing the discussion failed to realise the article is nonsense Gibnews 22:12, 22 June 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 was a userbox in user space and not a template. User ^demon claims that this userbox is a template under CSD T1 but does not substantiate the claim. Where is the discussion where users consensed on the idea that templates are the same thing or subject to the same rules as userboxes in user space? Current UBX policy states that "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive." The UBX in question conformed to that criterion. User Sefringle takes exceptions to the 'implications' s/he finds in the UBX Overturn. I agree with DieWeisseRose. I had the userbox on my user page, and did not know that it was proposed for deletion until a bot removed it. The whole process, from nomination to delete, lasted just six hours, during which many editors will have been asleep. It looks to me as though only the nominating editor actually took part in the discussion before the discussion was closed and the box deleted. This s6trikes me as an unnecessarily hasty process. The box itself was appropriate; when editing an article, it is often helpful to know whether an editor has a strong political or philosophical inclination to any side in related discussions. This does not imply uncritical support for those who share my own bias, or opposition to those who do not; but it does mean that editors can understand where another editor is coming from, and what they are trying to say. Of course such boxes should not be obligatory; but if someone feels strongly enough about an issue to declare this on their user page, this is an indication that they recognise their own possible partiality and are making this known publicly. I think the userbox should be restored. --RolandR 20:21, 22 June 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. |
|
restore Thomaslear 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) --> Hello, user Quadell deleted "Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg" - can I ask why please? the log says (replaceable fair use (CSD I7)) however this is a non-copyrighted image, it is publicly available on Pucci's myspace page and I am not sure of the reason for deletion. I am not re-uploading in case it is in breach of some rule, however the one given in the delete seems to be strange
|
| 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 speedily deleted by Cyde with the reasoning "No official repository for non-template space T1 templates." Whether this is or is not a "official" repository is subject to debate, as well whether the templates within are "T1 templates" (does this imply they can and will be deleted any time citing T1?). For this reason the deletion should be overturned. 84.145.231.10 11:28, 22 June 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 userbox is question was deleted by Cyde citing "T1". I fail to see what is so divisive and inflammatory in a userbox that says "This user is a Communist" that it warrants speedy deletion. The pratice continues that the XfD process is conveniently ignored by users who have "the bit", circumventing community consensus finding, even or especially if they know that their actions are quite controversial. 84.145.231.10 09:41, 22 June 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 concerns Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. I already tried to get the closing admin to change his mind. From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page: "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion." I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus, to delete this category, and that is the main reason I am asking for this deletion review. And I thought closing admins took less notice of "post-and-run" deletion votes who don't discuss anything. I would like the category to be kept, or at the very least relisted for discussion. I also believe there is new info. The main reason given by those who wanted deletion was discovered late into discussion to be incorrectly applied, and there was little opportunity to discuss the new info. Some people wrote "Listify and Delete", or just cited Tewfik as their reason. Tewfik's reason was guideline 8 at Wikipedia:Categorization# Some general guidelines. But late into discussion it was discovered that when one reads guideline 8 one finds that it actually could be applied to keeping the category. How? Because the use of Tewfik's very specific and non-controversial subcategories in his list page, List of East Jerusalem locations, means that "it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs" in those subcategories. So the subcategories of Tewfik's highly-praised list page can be used as the uncontroversial subcategories of a category page, Category:East Jerusalem. Another delete vote said to go ahead and create those subcategories, but still to delete the overall category! Eventually, someone will create those subcategories anyway, and then put them in a new version of Category:East Jerusalem. I can live with that, but I still think the original closing admin decision to delete was faulty, and would like other opinions. Timeshifter 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn this is not a subject for vote counting. Among the arguments for deletion accepted in the closing was that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category. That's not a valid argument. DGG 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Note: Debolded as the user has commented to "relist" below. TewfikTalk 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 21 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
1.000.000 plus views - notable? Dear Fellow Editors, I would like to propose that we now restore the page, since the film has been shown on video google 1.027.655 times (1500 views a day). I believe that makes it notable enough to be included on wikipedia. — Xiutwel (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
With "Terror Storm" written on his T-shirt, singer Matthew Bellamy took to a white piano at one point. Afterwards he said they were getting a vibe from the crowd, and in the words of their own song they really seemed invincible.
|
| 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 band recorded the theme song for a TV, they are also the band for a division I-A football program. I feel no good reason was given for deletion, but nobody noticed that it was up for deletion other than a few people who knew nothing of the subject. It could use more sources, but I will gladly work to improve it. Bassgoonist 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Etphonehome 22:05, 21 June 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. |
|
Album and song by Jeffree Star milk the cows (Talk) 16:45, 21 June 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. |
|
song by Jeffree Star milk the cows (Talk) 16:45, 21 June 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 deleted without review or debate. For the record, I am not affiliated with either this company or any of it's competitiors. From what I remember, the article was stubby but still a valid article about a notable technology corporation. There was probably some POV text that should have been marked as such (or cleaned up) instead of deleted. I request undeletion on the grounds that the subject is notable and any POV in the article can easily be neutralized by myself or other editors. Austin Murphy 16:21, 21 June 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. |
|
debate was closed as delete all, but vote count was one terse non-vote ("Bilge.Delete"), 4 "delete all", 2 "keep all", and 2 to keep the Category:Monarchist Wikipedians but delete the subcats. On a vote-count the result was therefore either "no consensus" or "delete the sub-categories but keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians"; assessing the arguments we have the deleters claim that he categories are divisive versus DGG's argument that as with the political ideology categories (see DRV below), these categories "puts the user into context". Neither arguments seems overwhelming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 21 June 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. |
|
Debate was closed contrary to a rough 2:1 (11:5) consensus to keep, and the points the closing admin says were not addressed in favor of deletion were in fact addressed. Thus, I can only conclude the "Delete All" verdict is in this case in error Ramdrake 13:24, 21 June 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 deleted this page as an uncontested prod, and I agree with the original prod reasoning that it had no references, and most of the article was some kind of essay instead of explaining what tkph is. I was later contacted by someone who gave some references:
However, personal essays are still unsuitable for Wikipedia. The article would then consist of a definition plus a list of references. JIP | Talk 04:47, 21 June 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 on vlogger needs a clear review by peers. While the "consensus" for deletion was addressed, various users and contributors comments were censored and removed. Terms like sockpuppet and meatpuppet were used to dismiss contributors who clearly stated their opinion on the status of boh3m3(Ben_Going). This article lacks Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on several levels. I am asking for a review / expert attention on Ben_Going, as well as wikipedia peers user:Ichormosquito who is trying to vandalize this review, article and harass me personally regarding this topic/debate. Thank you. I do have further arguments, however wanted to keep this on review/topic and to the point. Sexyorge 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 20 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm closing this: Richard Norton was assuming this article was about the child prodigy composer Alex Prior, but it was about some other Alex Prior that lives in Brisbane instead of London, and is seemingly a typical student. If anyone wants to create an article on the Alex Prior mentioned in the sources, go ahead. Mangojuicetalk 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC) featured on BBC The World's Alex Gallafent has the story of 14-year-old prodigy Alex Prior who composed a ballet that's made it to the Russian stage. The work premiered this evening in Moscow. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:11, 20 June 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 DRV'ing my own action here, because I'm sure some will consider it controversial. However, over the course of a couple of days aggressively trimming down the article it became clear that the only reason this article exists is to disparage its subject. Unlike some G10 speedies, though, this was sourced - some people have done some very deep research to find unflattering details about this person's life in tangential mentions of minor news media. Ingram is a private investigator who works for the church of Scientology (note to closer: please beware of vote-stacking here), a former cop who was fired amidst some minor controversy over 25 years ago. There are a couple of sources covering that but there are no other sources about him, but some that mention him in passing. There is no substance to the article, no indication why anyone would want to read an article on this person, but plenty of unflattering information. So I deleted it per WP:BLP. I tried AfD previously but it failed, but I don't view that as a critical precedent here. First, the AfD was closed within about 4 hours as an "early keep." Second, the keep comments never addressed the BLP concern, and indeed, no supporter of the article has been able to address it. Third, the debate was closed partly because this article was linked from the Main page via WP:DYK (a really backwards decision in my view: if there's a BLP issue on the Main page of Wikipedia, we should take it down immediately until those issues are resolved). For my part, obviously, endorse. Mangojuicetalk 13:59, 20 June 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 writing in reference to your deletion of Translations.com. Although a company owned by TransPerfect I believe it has significant scope and international influence to be justified as an individual entry. I was editing today to improve the NPOV and to introduce external links, citations and wikilinks so that the article's merit would be demonstrated. This company works with virtually all the Fortune 1000 and independently of the parent company, making its removal questionable. The speed at which business is growing globally means that the technologies, terminologies and influence of Translations.com is of significant public interest and therefore relevant for Wikipedia. I ask that you restore the pages and allow me some time to improve the NPOV to your standards? 217.204.103.106 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC) --217.204.103.106 12:36, 20 June 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 no concensus to delete; the nomination search for sources was quickly shown to have been lacking, SlimVirgin's rationale for deletion was "I've read elsewhere that people have been having trouble finding third-party sources for this" and user BPMullins and Jquarry both claimed that the only sources were by the language creator, which was contested without response. The reason I contested it was the paper "Logic Programming Tools for Advanced Internet Programming" in Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 1997 International Symposium was written by Paul Tarau, who is not listed as an author of ALF. Besides a general Prolog article, the only other constraint logic programming languages with real implementations that have articles are CHIP, Curry, and MOZART. John Vandenberg 06:45, 20 June 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. |
|
Image was deleted with reason: "Replaceable fair use to be decided after 6 June 2007". I'm motioning an overturn because although this photograph is courtesy Max Koot, it has been cleared for free publishing on the web. It took me about an hour to wade through all information available regarding upload instructions and licences, however did not know there was such a thing as DRV. I hope we can resolve this manner without too much bloodshed, since if you'd really want to play hardball, you'd have to consider removing a lot more honourable photographs than just this one. ExpendableAsset 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 19 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| .
Template is not inflammitory or divisive, so does not meet T1 criteria for speedy deletion Willy turner 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If you dont know what to say about my statement then you shouldnt be commenting at all. Having a picture of book burning clearly does not paint anyone as a nazi. Willy turner 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC) The image is used on every page dealing with Censorship. Why havent you nominated it for deletion from the censorship series box if you feel so strongly. I can just about deal with admins censoring any userbox which is critical of any aspect of religion, but this is the last straw. If a userbox opposing censorship is censored (without any discussion), then we may as well delete all userboxes expressing an opinion. Willy turner 22:09, 19 June 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. |
|
non-notable software Hi, I would like to request that Xcellery be opened for Undelete review. This is my first time writing an article versus just making small edits so I apologize in advance for getting the procedures wrong. A temporary version may be found at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox I understand from CambridgeBayWeather that this particular article was deleted twice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery (second nomination) due to advertising content and insufficient notable sources. Taking this into account, I have re-written the stub and at CBW's advice, I would like to submit it for review. According to WP:SOFTWARE a piece of software must be notable if it has multiple non-trivial independant mentions. At the time, Lifehacker and Salesforce were listed as the two references. Upon further review, it was noted that the Lifehacker reference did not live up to the WP:SOFTWARE standard since it appeared that the author of that blog article had not used the software... Now that a few months has passed, I found the following references to Xcellery thanks to Google. Besides SalesForce AppExchange (which noone has disputed the legitimacy of), there is a reference on Buzzshout, Office 2.0 Database, and Webware. Of these, several are hands on evaluations of this software so they should count, right? I'm not sure what the next step of this procedure is. Please advise. Regards, --Gsalelanonda 20:56, 19 June 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. |
|
Both the nominator and one participant failed to provide any reasoning as to why they deemed this person not notable. One other relied on online sources. The paper archived their online content for a limited length of time, but information would still be available in dead tree format. The final participant in the discussion draw into question his single television appearance without even discussing the fact he had a leading role in a London West End musical and not only had a leading role in said TV show. I believe this article should be undeleted because the most important argument for his notability - his stage work - was completely ignored in the AFD and none of the comments took ALL his work in consideration. Mgm|(talk) 18:14, 19 June 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 posted this article twice, and both times it has been deleted by the same administrator. The article was previously posted by someone else, and there was a deletion discussion. The administrator who continues to delete it cites that discussion as his reason. However, that discussion was flawed. The reasons given for deleting the article are inappropriate. One reason was lack of verification of claims, yet links were provided in the article that backed them. Another reason was the questioning of the importance of the article. Element TD is a very popular game for Warcraft 3, and I say this as a person who has played Warcraft 3 for years. But don't take my word for it, the number of downloads it has received on numerous Warcraft 3 sites speak to this fact. It has not only been Spotlighted by Blizzard themselves as an outstanding map, but it also is featured in the map section of the prestigious WC3Campaigns.net. The final reason brought against the article is that custom maps for games do not deserve to be on Wikipedia. However, Defense of the Ancients (DotA) has TWO articles on Wikipedia (DotA and DotA Allstars). It should be noted that DotA is a custom map for Warcraft 3. If that reason is to be cited, Wikipedia should be consistent. I believe the handling of this article has been inappropriate. The article has not had a chance to grow in size and quality because it is immediately deleted. I can promise that many users will edit and improve the article, because Element TD has a large fan base. Please rectify this situation. Karawasa 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.battle.net/mod/mapvault_archive3.shtml - This is the link to Blizzard's Spotlight Maps. If you don't know, Blizzard is the company responsible for making Warcraft 3. Element TD being in this archive means that Blizzard has singled it out for being one of the better custom maps for Warcraft 3. http://www.epicwar.com/maps/?mode=details&order=desc&sort=downloads&page=1 - This is a link that shows that Element TD has an outstanding number of downloads and ratings. See how it is above every map but two for this database in terms of downloads. http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2745/eletddv7.jpg - Link to picture taking of WC3Campaigns.net map database. Notice how Element TD is a part of the database. WC3Campaigns.net is essentially the largest and most respected site for Warcraft 3 maps and modding. Element TD being a part of this database was only possible with the approval of the administration of that site. Very few maps make it into the database, only the highest quality and most respected ones. http://warcraft3.filefront.com/file/8_Element_TD;71609 - Link to another site for Warcraft 3 downloads. Notice the large number of downloads for this map. Feel free to compare the number of downloads with others from that site. What other proof can I offer you? I also would like an answer to a question I have asked several times. Why is Defense of the Ancients article allowed to exist on Wikipedia (DotA). It has TWO articles (DotA and DotA Allstars). What proof have they offered to be allowed an article? If Element TD article cannot exist on Wikipedia, nor should this article. As administrators, you need to be consistent. RHaworth, I thank you for actually taking the time to familiarize yourself with Warcraft 3. My conflict of interest is irrelevant here. It is not self-promotion, I do not mention myself at all in the article. --Karawasa 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 18 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is important information and needs to be restored. You can't understand baseball without this information. It's the middle of the season. The information cannot be found on the dictionary site. Please restore this important encyclopedic article. I can't see where any proper discussion concluded that this page or its subsets should, in fact, be deleted. bd2412 T 22:45, 18 June 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 deleted via AFD and salted due to repeated recreation. The publisher attempted a deletion review nomination back in February, but it was quite malformed. I worked on a redraft at User:Garycdunn/The Caretaker Gazette, but never got around to nominating it for review here. The new version is sourced, and I believe it is notable. It also was written by someone without a conflict of interest, but that may not be true of the maintainers. Is it worth including? GRBerry 21:04, 18 June 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 closed after an AfD discussion on the grounds of lack of notability. I agree that the original author poorly cited secondary sources, but assert that these sources do exist; see below. In short, I do not believe the participants in the AfD discussion made a good-faith effort to find secondary sources with which to improve the article, and would like unprotection or undeletion of the article so that the article can be revamped to include these sources, and thereby satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement. Here are some sources that would be included to establish notability: These sources appear to satisfy the notability guideline: Below are some similar Wikipedia pages with similar content and with equivalent levels of secondary source coverage:
|
| 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. |
|
Initial criteria for deletion and redirect was that much of the article was also covered by the plot description for the film Forrest Gump. Since the plot section has been greatly condensed, this is no longer true and most of Jenny's life is not addressed in the Gump article. --T smitts 19:58, 18 June 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. |
|
Featured in Portal:Constructed Languages. Prod was deleted. If the Notability of the article is contested, it should be discussed in this Portal talk and/or proposed to merge it into a paragraph of Philosophical language or Engineered language and set a redirect. Deleting it even after Prod was contested and it is featured in the portal looks like admin abuse or bullying; if the community thinks that individual ConLangs do not belong into the wikipedia, this should be voiced in other ways than deletion instead of a contested Prod. A "mergefrom"-Tag was set to Philosophical language and Engineered language; please undelete the article to set a redir and/or preserve the history. 85.181.39.131 12:42, 18 June 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. |
|
Featured in Portal:Constructed Languages, Template:Esperanto and Portal:Esperanto. Prod was deleted. If the Notability of the article is contested, it should be discussed in this Portal talk and/or proposed to merge it into a paragraph of Esperantido and set a redirect. Deleting it even after Prod was contested and it is featured in the portal looks like admin abuse or bullying; if the community thinks that individual Esperantidos do not belong into the wikipedia, this should be voiced in other ways than deletion instead of a contested Prod. A "mergefrom"-Tag was set to Esperanto; please undelete the article to set a redir and/or preserve the history. 85.181.39.131 12:42, 18 June 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. |
|
(1) It was pointed out, but apparently ignored, that this article was part of a system of articles rooted as Gallery of flags by design: When that page grew successively long, its editors decided to factor it into a number of subpages; "Stars" is one of the subpages, not an "indiscriminate collection of information" (unless you think the entire "flags by design" system is "indiscriminate", but then one wonders what "indiscriminate" means here). A decision to delete this article, but to ignore the larger system it is apart of, does not make sense. |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 17 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted after a very short period of discussion and with very little discussion. As for the issue of notability, it is worth noting that other Green candidates with similiar electoral results are still listed in wikipedia. (Also in the interest of fairness, I need to admit that I am James M. Branum, so you will be aware of the COI.) I am requesting an overturn and undelete. --Jmbranum 00:03, 18 June 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. |
|
After a very short period of time from the second AfD, and without notice to anyone who had participated in previous AfD discussions on the article, the DKP article was deleted. I won't rehash the AfD discussion itself here, as that can wait for the next time around. I don't feel it is appropriate for an editor to constantly relist the same article for deletion until they get a "win" simply because they don't personally feel the subject's category (gaming) is of interest to Wikipedia. After the second AfD, the article was improved considerably and yet an AfD was created in less than a month's time. Furthermore, there was no clear consensus, and the majority of deletion-voters merely stated non-arguments such as an opinion that it was "not notable" without any reason or context. I am requesting an overturn and undelete. If the DRV consensus is that the article is questionable, then by all means: relist the AfD and at least allow those who worked on it the last time around to actually participate. Tarinth 21:27, 17 June 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. |
|
Nominator withdrew AfD for some reason. However, consensus was to delete and I would like to now renominate the article for deletion. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:37, 17 June 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. |
|
nominated by Coldmachine, shown to be a sockpuppet of Emnx by checkuser, who also (non)voted as Arthana, biasing the AfD with various allegations asking that the AfD be suspended. Both users were blocked just as the AfD ended. The first AfD was started by the same blocked user and was voided when he was blocked. This AfD should also be voided based on the fact that all edits by a blocked user should be reverted. IPSOS (talk) 13:16, 17 June 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. |
|
Clearly notable figure for receiving substantial press coverage surrounding an issue of enormous public interest. Outrageous that this article was speedy deleted, at the very least it should have been AfD'd. Feshbach Fan 12:14, 17 June 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 mostly blanked. It seems that while it was under nomination for AfD, the article was blanked and replaced with this single sentence: "The long-running comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz has been the subject of many references, homages, parodies, etc. Here are some of them:" - The page should at least be restored (and possibly relisted), with the actual article shown. "Hiding" the article during an AfD discussion means that those who may have commented, who merely saw the blanked version, may not have bothered to comment. Note that one commenter suggested that the information was in the Peanuts article, but that rather obviously refers only to subsequent edits of the article after the change to the single sentence). - jc37 11:51, 17 June 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 should not have been deleted, as there are reliable sources that prove he meets Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BIO. He was in:
These are all reliable sources, and the article should be relisted at articles for deletion. He is clearly notable, per the above sources. No BLP issues or controversy here. This article was deleted out-of-process. As it were, the sources mentioned were not listed in the ORIGINAL article, but now they're here, the article should be relisted at AFD. --Paltriss 09:54, 17 June 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. |
|
AfD was improperly closed as "delete" by the admin when the !votes clearly point to no consensus, i.e. keep. The articel was changed every time at there is a good change that the articel will be soon 100 % wiki suitableUser:Puppy milehnort 11:11, 17 June 2007 (GMT)
|
| 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 essentially identical to the now-deleted Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, and Sommer Isdale below, but closed as an unexplained and unambiguous "Keep" by User:Y. Since User:PageantUpdater is holding up this closing as a rationale for undeleting the other three, it seems only fair to judge its "keep" by the same standards. At the very least, closing it as an unambiguous "Keep" is flatly wrong and out-of-process.
|
| 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. |
|
More people wanted it kept than deleted. The deletion discussion lasted only one day. I the creator wasnt informed of the deletion discussion. It has not been established that the userbox is against any wikipedia policy,guideline, or rule. Reasons given for deletion were based on subjective, incorrect inferences of what the userbox meant. The userbox does not imply that all muslims are misogenists, or that islam is inherently misogenistic. The intended meaning of the userbox is that the user is oposed to misogeny or lack of equal rights and human rights for women that is justified by islamic scripture Willy turner 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC) No-one has explained why they think it is inflammitory, apart from saying "Suggests misogyny to be Islamic and Islam to be misogynist". I believe above i have shown there is at least reasonable doubt to the truth of this statement. The admins statement that "Anything that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group has no place on Wikipedia", is definately incorrect, as there is a substantial amount of material on wikipedia that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group. Willy turner 01:16, 17 June 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. |
| ====
AfD was improperly closed as "delete" by the admin when the !votes clearly point to no consensus, i.e. keep. Puppy Mill 00:50, 17 June 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. |
|
Improperly closed as "delete" by the admin. The !votes were 2 to 1 in favor of keeping, and furthermore the closing admin in his/her closing comments stated that the decision to delete was based solely on nobody getting around to adding sources, which is not in itself a reason to delete given that numerous sources were noted in the !votes. Overturn and keep Puppy Mill 01:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 16 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The majority of voters on the talk page were in favour of keeping the article, yet it was merged. The article clearly demonstrates the subjects importance and notablility. The Victoria Cross is very important in the UK and this may not be obvious to American users. Lummis's research into it was historically very important and therefore notable. The article should be restored. The majority consensus was to keep Jack1956 21:54, 16 June 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. |
|
After two votes for merge, an admin speedily deleted and closed the AfD. Dhaluza 21:15, 16 June 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 describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir
|
| 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 describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with an unfounded explanation. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:After Midnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 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 describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with no explanation. Decision was marginal at best, I admit I acted poorly in the debate but I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:After Midnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. I tried asking the closing admin for an explanation of this and two other decisions, but was impolitely rebuffed, although he did leave a message on my talk page suggesting that any keep votes relied on crystal ballism. He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable", "Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable", "As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable", "nationally televised event is notable, and so are winners in the event ", "state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant", "the sources are there". None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin. PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 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. |
|
Close did not follow the consensus of the Afd Discussion. On weight of numbers, 22 deletes to 19 keeps is a long way from any sort of consensus to delete. On weight of arguments, those who favored keep pointed out more than sufficient mainstream media coverage and significant acts to pass WP:BIO and WP:N. Those who favored deletion disagreed on notability, largely on "IDon'tLikeit" and "I never heard of him" (both of which are irrelevant) and on arguments over whether his actions and media mentions were "important enough" for an article, with little policy basis. And they urged that Seth Finkelstein does not want an article, as he himself urged at some length. His main argument was that the article was a "troll magnet", but the history showed that in fact it has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last 7 months, a pretty good ratio. Even the current version of BLP says only that the closer can consider the subject's desires in a close case, but this wasn't anywhere near being close to a consensus to delete, and BLP does NOT say that the subject's desire is in and of itself a reason to delete, nor should it, IMO. The closer has been asked by multiple editors to overturn his own close, has discussed it, and clearly declines to do so. Closers have a degree of flexibility, but they are not supposed to find a consensus to delete where none exists. Overturn and close as "No Consensus, defaulting to keep". DES (talk) 05:23, 16 June 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. |
|
meets criteria for WP:BAND:
|
| 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 after recreation per AfD even after it was rewritten so it wouldn't be deleted. Deletion Quality 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 15 June 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it.— Jimbo Wales. On that day, the day that Jimbo randomly declared it all right to edit, discuss and improve... well, wait a second. If you study what he said closely, he doesn't even say that's what's going to happen. All he says is we may discuss it again. And well the article wasn't undeleted, but...... the talk page should be restored so we can discuss it again. SakotGrimshine 22:30, 15 June 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 discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by language was speedy-kept "per this being a WP:POINT nomination" when discussion had barely begun. In fact, several people had also mentioned WP:POINT, although no one ever said exactly what point they thought I was disrupting Wikipedia to make. As it happens, I wasn't. The Babel categories (Category:Wikipedians by language and its subcategories, however long-standing they may be, are unencyclopedic. They do not help the project in any way. The few people who did manage to say something before the discussion was closed claimed these categories are used to help in translation, but in fact they aren't. Category:Available translators in Wikipedia does that. Not everyone who is competent in a given language is able to translate it, and certainly not everyone who is capable of translating a given language is willing to do so. Once the red herring of translation assistance has been removed from these categories, there's nothing left for them to do except contribute to the MySpacification of Wikipedia. Therefore I request that the speedy-keep be overturned, and the UCFD discussion allowed to run its course. —Angr 21:56, 15 June 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. |
|
Sokker Manager, a web-based soccer simulation, has grown to over 47,000 users worldwide since it was first deleted in March 2006. Similar browser games like Hattrick, Battrick, Managerzone, Championship Manager Online, and Football Dot Manager all have active Wikipeida pages, yet Sokker keeps having its page deleted based on a debate that occurred well over a year ago. Reasons for deletion then were that it was an advertisement for the game, but various Sokker users want to make it into a guide/interesting article like the other similar game pages; however, the page is not allowed to stay it cannot be completed to reach the desired article point. Sokker has a page in other Wikipedia languages including Spanish, Dutch, and Italian (and maybe a few more). Why not English? Can we have another debate or will somebody please restore this page so it can be fine-tuned and finished. After all, with 47,000+ users spanning across six different continents, it is rather notable. WildManKY 20:15, 15 June 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. |
|
One of many United States Navy officer rank insignia uploaded in 2005. Deleted by User:Majorly as having no source. I noticed this when Majorly began to orphan the commons image showing through. I believe we should WP:AGF these are indeed public domain images (works of the U.S. Navy) until shown otherwise. -N 19:13, 15 June 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 engine fits 100% in the “proposed engine designs” [[72]] and has merit. Some criticized things can be changed. By the way: The same German article survived just a deletion attempt. [73] The Wolfhart Engine is even honored in the portal of Wikipedia: [74] --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (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. |
|
The whole discussion was incomplete with outstanding issues unadressed and yet this has been closed and the categories removed. Also this now leaves one borough with people categorised incorrectly as being from Ealing when they may be from somewhere very different which just happens to be in the Borough of that name. Finally this now puts Ealing out of sync with the rest of the London categories, which no consideration has to be given to. The original deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:People from Ealing by district and please note the sub cats also deleted with this. Regan123 17:42, 15 June 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. |
|
A notable footage library that owns the rights to many shows from the '50s, '60s and '70s. BlueLotas 16:40, 15 June 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. |
|
Hi, I am looking to restore my page to wikipedia. I have been working very hard to create my first wikipedia page. Seeing as I have never done this before, I have made a couple of mistakes on the copyright information about my uploaded photos and text in my article. I have all the copyrights to everything I have put up on my article; yet, due to improper citing I have been accused of plagiarsm. I would really like to fix this misunderstanding, but my page keeps getting deleted before I get a chance to and now I see it is protected so I can not even start it again correctly. I have worked very hard to try to get my page up, and it is very frustrating that the reason all of my work has been deleted is due to my lack of experience, and not plagiarism. I have just received permission from wikipedia to use the content of my article on the website. However, I am still facing notability problems and I am not sure as to why. I am not writing an autobiogrpahical entry. I am currently a student at the University of Michigan who is majoring in Comminication Studies. The woman who I am writing this page about is indeed very notable. When looking at the notability guidelines, I see that she without question meets the requirements. In the Public Relations field she has great name recognition and is regarded as an important figure by the peers in the field. Even though she has neither invented any new technology or created a new drug like other people written about in wikipedia, in the field that she is in (the world of publicity and celebrity) she is extremely important. She is published by outside reliable sources, such as NY Magazine, listed as one of the "Who's Who of American Women," and works with extremely important people (such as Presidents, Heads of States, and celebrities). I am not using wikipedia to create importance for anyone nor am I writing an article about myself or doing any other unethical thing that is frowned upon by wikipedia. I am simply trying to write about a fascinating woman who I think is extremely important in the field of Public Relations. I do not know how to impress this upon the editors, but she is a notable woman who deserves an article written about her on wikipedia. Obviously as a first-time user I have made a lot of mistakes, but now that I have been working for a couple of days I have learned more and would really like the chance to finish my article. Jororo 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Jororo (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. |
|
new article with reliable and verifiable sources and new information, not previously mentioned. If approved the article should appear under IM+ title. Pleave view additional discussion on User Talk: JonHarder Leanalove 09:20, 15 June 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. |
|
"01:16, 15 June 2007 Picaroon9288 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union" (divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose)". Surely the category could have been renamed (to members of the ACLU)? Notice he didn't call it "inflammatory" because it's not. Since it's not inflammatory, speedy deletion was inappropriate, and it should be sent to WP:UCFD. -N 11:22, 15 June 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 MfD on this page was closed as 'blank the content' despite a clear consensus to keep... nine people, including several admins, said that the page should be kept and/or that the MfD itself was improper while five said that the page should be deleted or blanked. No, 'we don't count', but it is just ridiculous to pretend there is a 'consensus' for something when people are 2 to 1 against it. The blanked content can be seen here. Essentially, the user has complaints about Wikipedia and some users have decided that they should not be allowed to post them on their user page. Since the page was blanked rather than deleted it doesn't really belong on DRV, but people are edit warring to keep it blanked so this is as good a place as any for deciding whether Wikipedia has adopted a policy of suppressing criticism. I hope this is 'overturned' (not that it was ever really endorsed in the first place) because we have always claimed that Wikipedia is open to criticism and doesn't suppress people just for saying things we might not agree with. IMO we shouldn't be bullying and blocking users simply for criticizing some aspect of the project. It's shameful and embarrassing. We used to allow this sort of thing. CBD 11:12, 15 June 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 IFD Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Deletion not supported by evidence; bias of closing admin Jenolen speak it! 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Closing admin User:Angr is a long-time advocate of the elimination of fair use on Wikipedia, and a curious choice to be making fair use-related decisions. His reasons for deletion: Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article. Almost all of these points are indisputable wrong.
I also find it curious that this image was recently reduced in size by the closing admin, who, at that time, apparently had no problem with image being used in the article; why reduce in resolution an image you believe to be being used outside of policy? In short, this administrator's bias against the fair use, within policy, of copyrighted material makes the entire process suspect. Rather than rehashing the whole "fair use on Wikipedia" debate, I would hope this would be a true deletion review, reviewing the deletion of this image. Jenolen speak it! 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
About "This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com", let use clarify this bit:
And about "...we are FAIRLY USING...", no we're not. We can't say we're not competing with the material's original market role without knowing the original market role intended for this material. And the info "copyrighted to CBS" doesn't give us any information about the original market role. --Abu badali (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) But your casual mention of 1,8, and maybe 5 shows how wrong this deletion was from the start. 1 - "No free equivalent" - you appear to be the only one who believes there's a "free equivalent" available to a photo of the cast of a TV show, in costume, on a set from the show, and with two of the actors wearing significantly appearance-altering makeup. All Star Trek images are going to be copyrighted by CBS/Paramount; I still disagree with your premise a "free equivalent" exists. There are free images of the actors individually, sure, but no image that is in any way a "free equivalent" to this one. 8 - Significance - Well, the TV show was about people. This was the only image of them on the page about the TV show. Are you seriously arguing an image of the characters in a TV show is not "significant" to the encyclopedia entry about that show? That argument is ridiculous on its face. And 5 - Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic - Well, as stated, it was the only image of the characters of a TV show on the encyclopedia entry page for that show. Encyclopedic? Check. Resolution reduced so as to meet "general Wikipedia content requirements"? Check -- by you, I should add. Why did you reduce the resolution of this image if you felt it was being improperly used? What changed in your thinking about it? But since your arguments about WP:NFCC 1,8, and 5 aren't sound, it's apparently only the sourcing issue you have a real beef with. And you'd rather delete than fix. Fine; can I assume you'd support re-uploading this image with proper sourcing? Jenolen speak it! 17:35, 21 June 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 nominator for this article (created in 2004) basically said it should be deleted because it is a list, saying it is a "list of..." article and therefore should be deleted. Almost every list is going to start with "list of." The nominator said to refer to this AfD for more reasons, which he/she also nominated for deletion, but that nomination told us nothing more. Most of the delete votes gave the reason "per nom" (or "just a list" or "too many lists on Wikipedia"). The others gave the reason that it should be deleted because it would be too hard to maintain, one saying too many songs from non-notable red-linked bands would appear. This was never a problem and if it became one I'm sure it would not be too hard to remove non-notable songs that users add. Another user gave an example "Don't Fear the Reaper" that is very easily interpreted to be about suicide, although it is never mentioned explicitly in the lyrics. The article had a whole section for this, List of songs about suicide#Misinterpreted, where it was introduced as "[s]ongs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out." One user voted keep saying "songs about suicide have generated a lot of notice and litigation in the US" and giving some examples. Another user made a comment that these would serve better in a separate article (not a list) and convinced that user to strike out the keep vote. But that article they described was deleted here. They were told about Suicide song's AfD but no reply was made. Tim Q. Wells 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 14 June 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This should not have been deleted, as it's not "listcruft" (what a wacked-out term that is!) and it doesn't violate Biographies of living persons either. It wasn't original research, and it should be undeleted because there ARE sources that assert the fact the people listed were obese in childhood. This article should be undeleted, relisted and sent to a wider forum for discussion - it's not remotely controversial, let alone a violation of any policy. Gleggsord 19:12, 14 June 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. |
|
Book cover, with notable photo, used in article covering author's being fired for publication of said photo and subsequent writing of book (the title of the book, Queen of Sky is a redirect to the author's bio). Since book covers are considered quasi-automatic fair use when discussing the book, and the cover photo itself is also mentioned in the article I fail to see how this fails fair use. -N 18:12, 14 June 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 links to address deletion issues were provided in the page recreation, but page was "speedy deleted" as spam, possibly due to the time frame from the original deletion and the recreation. DarkNation AG 14:02, 14 June 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 because no fair-use rationale was given. Since it's an album cover that does have a proper fair-use rationale, and since I'm not able to find a suitable quality image to use, I'll gladly provide said rationale. fuzzy510 03:18, 14 June 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. |
|
Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2 |
| 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. |
|
Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for Dawn_Yang, a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)
Since both are notable for their blogging activities and the Dawn Yang article is more encyclopedic in nature, a more encyclopedic entry can be written about Xiaxue that is not based mostly on POV. However, please note that the reason that lead to deletion, "it is unencyclopedic" is also listed on the "arguments to avoid" page. Therefore, the article's deletion is questionable. - January2007
|
| 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. |
|
AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made —Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research The article fulfills the criteria of both of those. How? Reliable sources DO NOT need to be third party. Sourcing the anime and manga is permissable by Wikipedia policy. Original research is defined as: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. None of those applies to the deleted article as a whole. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information That got thrown around as the primary reason for deletion both times, and yet has nothing to do with the article. Why? There are ten things listed in there and this isn't one of them. Wikipedia:Fancruft That got thrown around a lot in both AFD, but is at best slander. Why? Well it basically states that the article violates one of the above mentioned policies.--Marhawkman 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 13 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I know this is silly... I prodded this article. Request undeletion to merge any applicable info to Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi -N 23:21, 13 June 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 would like to use this .ogg file within the Harvest article's main text. There is a reference to this song within the text. I would like to use it in a similar way in which "Image:MariahCareyBoyzIIMenOneSweetDay.ogg" is used within the Mariah Carey article. I will need to revise the fair use justification as it will no longer be within the Harvest article's discography Jamie L. 19:33, 13 June 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. |
|
WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM Steely 340 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Our discussion is being held at User talk:SkyIsFalling Steely 340 19:24, 13 June 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 are ongoing discussions at WT:N/HWY to establish a notability guideline for roads. This article was deleted without any regard to the discussion, and the fact that being unsourced and possibly non-notable is not part of CSD. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 16:31, 13 June 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 just recently deleted without any AFD vote by Philip Baird Shearer, he used the excuse that Algerian Genocide was deleted with an AFD vote and that he thinks this is similar however the old deleted article had a POV name (not a recognized genocide) whereas Accusations of French genocide against Algerians examined the accusations and included opposing viewpoints, it was well sourced and this is wholly inappropriate for an admin (who was previously involved in edit disputes in this article and about the issue of the Algerian 'genocide'[77]) to delete it with no AFD vote Bleh999 13:06, 13 June 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 templates proposed for undeletion are:
(Listed in above format as {{Newdelrev}} permits the inclusion of only one page) The concerned WikiProject was not notified of the TfD nomination, and thus the people who have an interest in seing the templates remain never got a chance to comment. The TfD was closed with the sole argument of "over specialization" of the templates. However, these are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. Both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. The second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of Pokémon images facilitates maintenance of those images. While the closing Admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokémon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:43, 13 June 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. |
|
A google search of this man's name yields his accomplishments and relevance as a film maker and director of music videos. The article lacked citations, however I would be more than willing to add them if the article was un-deleted, and clean up the silliness of some parts of it, e.g. "Titles: King of the San Fernando Valley". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.86.97 (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. |
|
Relevant to aother articles and an important figure in providing mathematical foundations of emergy concept Sholto Maud 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 12 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted in the past, largely because it had few sources outside its own websites. However, the revised article has two external sources. The reason given at the time was notability, but I feel that the subject has been proven notable. Some of the votes for deletion included "Yawn. Another Linux distro" and other reasons that in my opinion were insubstantial. Thomasmallen 02:07, 13 June 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 situation has changed since the AfD-debate about six weeks ago. The main arguments were that the programming language was not notable and lacked a clear definition. Now, a Google-search yields about 750,000 results (compare with for example Malbolge which is an accepted article, yet receives only 20,000 results), and a defined Lolcode version 1.0 has been established. Because of this, I think a new debate is appropriate. HymylyT@C 20:17, 12 June 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 mentioned above has now run its course. It was closed as "delete", and I fail to see how this can possibly reflect community consensus. Related discussion: If I counted correctly, 13-15 people in the AfD recommended to delete, 18-20 to keep (plus minus a few leaning/conditional/merge on each side). Yes, as Kurykh contends, AfD is not a vote. But even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments about the reliability of the sources — this AfD does not reflect a consensus for deletion, not even a rough one, and the policy is clear enough that this defaults to a "keep". WP:AN: Kurykh's rationale for deletion and for disregarding opinions at the AfD—many of which explicitly state that the articles do not violate WP:RS—is that the articles violate WP:RS. I find this unilateral decision not acceptable and in violation of proper deletion procedure. Femto 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Hence my !vote to overturn Brown's Gas. I still think it'd be better that if HHO has to have an article, it should be at HHO gas hoax or similar, though. EliminatorJR Talk 21:04, 19 June 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 clear consensus and questionable nomination for AfD. The article on "Brian Crecente" was deleted without clear consensus. Additionally the nominator of the AfD isn't a user. How was an AfD created without having to be a user? Per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process (emphasis added), as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD." I feel that the decision should instead be "no consensus" on this article. Outside of the "voting" itself there are questionable motives behind the AfD. Since the "delete" decision the AfD nominator has stated "I am the nominator and I too was a bit surprised on its speedy deletion. I was expecting more of a debate/consensus to keep it. Although I did nominate it, I would have thought we could have done a major revision or atleast try to make it notable in the first place, as by make, I mean finding real information on the man. If anything I would like it to be fair than biased, so lets see if we can get that debate back up then?" The AfD discussion shows (4) Delete, (2) Keep & (1) Weak Keep. This includes the non-user that nominated the AfD. Drew30319 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 11 June 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Legitimate game played at a number of UK universities. Morevisit 23:36, 11 June 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. |
You can see the list at Poulet.net [86] They released a few however at small and medium demoparties and archieved more than once top 10 results with their contributions. Notable are the following results: 5th place at Evoke 2005 (64KB Intro Competition), 7th at BreakPoint 2006 (64KB Intro Competition) and 7th at Euskal 2006 (Wild Demo Competition).
I just want to name some of the groups releases. Some were mentioned in the article, some were not. The group released following major titles FIRST (worldwide) and beat the international competion in the cracking and releasing "game": Quake 4 , Sim Sity 3000, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, Black & White 2, Command & Conquer: Generals Unreal Tournament 2004, Command & Conquer: Generals, Call of Duty 1 and 2, Max Payne 2, Final Fantasy VIII PC, HOMM4, Myst III and V, Grand Theft Auto 3, F.E.A.R. and that are only examples. The list goes on and on. I am not a big gamer myself and even I am familar with those titles. Major titles are mostly released by leadinging warez group first. Why? Because in order to be the first, you have to have good suppliers that can get a copy of the game prior or as early as possible on the release date, have to get it to a cracker who has to remove the copy protection, pack it up (rar/ace/arj files split up and then zipped, update and add the group NFO file and file_id.diz, add a cracktro (if available) and get it out to the next server on the internet to have then the couriers of the group take over and spread it to the most dominant servers (especially servers of competing groups) to claim the title. Because of this complexity and sophistication is it rare that a small and unknown group is able to beat the leading groups in this race. Being first for numerous major titles is impossible without being a leader in the space and thus notable in regards to the subject "warez groups". |
| 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. |
|
Executive Summary: This article was proposed for deletion in retaliation for editing that I did - articles should not be deleted in retaliation for editing changes - especially when the changes were necessary to adhere to wikipedia policies! I edited a page about a living person, Zen Master Dae Gak, in four ways: (1) I removed controversial material (from both the main article and the discussion page) that I felt was clearly in violation of wikipedia policies with respect to biographies of living persons, (2) I removed a "sourcing" flag that I felt was not applicable to the page, (3) I added a notice to the discussion page that all content must be consistent with wikipedia policies concerning biographies of living persons, and (4) I changed the article so that the subject was consistently referred to by the name under which the article was listed ("Dae Gak"). The fourth change was not only for consistency, but also to show the usual respect for a person with a "religious name" associated with their religious vocation. Wikipedia articles on the current Pope, for example, do not refer to him as "Herr Ratzinger" (nor should they). A message was then sent by user Killerbeez to Administrator Will Beback, asking for Will Beback's advice on how to respond to my editing. Will Beback responded by suggesting that the article be deleted! For two years, the page on Zen Master Dae Gak had been a "free-for-all" where people had posted controversial material on the subject in clear violation of wikipedia policies. As soon as I made it clear that I understood these policies and that I would be monitoring the page to see to it that they were adhered to - their fun was over and so they preferred to delete the page as one last swipe at the page's subject. Reviewing this deletion must take into account the history of the way the page had been used for a prolonged period of time as a means of spreading derogatory controversial material about a living person, and that proposing the article for deletion was a blatant retaliation that occurred as soon as it became obvious that editors of this page would have to start adhering to wikipedia policies. Durruti36 18:34, 11 June 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 had a fair use rationale and the source was given. I can't see why it should be deleted a since the sysop who did it won't reply, I turn to this process. Maitch 17:38, 11 June 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. |
|
At the very least consider unprotecting the page,there was never a normal AFD, and page did not qualify for speedy deletion.Page does not violate WP:BLP and meets Wikipedia:Notability because he was the first man qurantined by the United States since 1963, and has a rare form of extensively drug resistent tuberculosis.Not just about him being in the news. Rodrigue 17:17, 11 June 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 page was nominated for speedy deletion by ExtraDry using the db-bio criterion. The subject of the article has been dean of two medical schools, and is currently vice-chancellor of a major Australian university. Both the original writer of the article and I believe that this alone constitutes an assertion of notability. Beyond that in the article there were listings of positions held in Australian research councils and a note that the subject of the article was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001. The criteria for awarding the centenary medal include "…those whose achievements in science, research or the arts made a notable impact at a national or international level." That means the Australian government seems to find him notable. David Newton 11:57, 11 June 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 speedy deleted citing [G11], however as a minor contributor to the article (by uploading a image), according to a google search (minus wikipedia/forum links) this company is somewhat notable by being at least one of the major bus builders in Australia. I believe this article should've not been speedied (or at least contact the contributors of the article first!), but at worst should have at least been going through the WP:PROD, or even sent straight to AfD if one of the contributors felt that this subject was not notable --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:07, 11 June 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 speedy deleted citing WP:COI. At the time I was working to correct that and I requested this deletion review. Both the deleting and reviewing admin stated "no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues." I have no COI in the subject, and when I recreated the article as a short NPOV stub (pasted below) it was deleted and the page was protected. The deleting editor also made an argument for notability in the prior review as a reason for deleting. This may be the case and I think the article should go through the regular AfD process, especially since NWA_Hawaii_United_States_Championship (an event conducted by NWA Hawaii) and Hawai'i Championship Wrestling (a competitor of similar stature) are currently WP articles. I left a talk page note for the deleting admin, User:JzG, 2 days ago requesting further information and have not received a rationale for deleting the stub and protecting the page. The stub I added that is the subject of this review: NWA Hawaii is an independent Pro Wrestling Promotion in the State of Hawaii sanctioned by the NWA. (Header) Beginnings The NWA's first Hawaii event, the original Mid Pacific Promotions, started in 1936. Collectively, the NWA affiliates in the State of Hawaii produced over 300 television episodes broadcast on local television during the 60s, 70s and early 80s. (Footer is: Link to the site; professional wrestling stub) Antonrojo 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 10 June 2007
[edit] 9 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
These categories were deleted during a large CFD in February where several Presidential nominee categories were nominated (and kept). For these two cats in particular, the CFD resembled straight voting, with very little actual discussion of the merits of deletion of them in particular (as opposed to the Presidential cats, for which there was more discussion). As Osomec indicated in the final comment "Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result." In fact, a comparison to Superbowl losers was the only comment during the discussion that was actually about these two judicial categories. (The closer also made a comment: that there was already a list of judicial nominees, a point that is addressed below.) With so little discussion of these two categories, it was inappropriate to delete them. The categories are both valid and encyclopedic. They complement Category:United States Supreme Court justices and its subcategories. The analogies to Super Bowl losers and to candidates for political office do not fit. Unlike Superbowl losers, many nominees to the Supreme Court are famous primarily or only for being nominees (think of why people recognize the names Harriet Miers and Robert Bork; in both cases, their status as failed/withdrawn nominees is noted in the article lead). Furthermore, with games as well as elections, there are always losers, but unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees have been relatively rare. The statistics show that most nominees have been approved throughout the Court's history, so something unusual happens when a nominee is not confirmed. The closer pointed out that there is already a list that duplicates the categories. Setting aside the issue of how appropriate it is for this rationale to be raised for the first time in the closing, categories and lists are not in competition; they work best when used in synergy. Categories are helpful for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia in a way that lists are not (plus lists clutter See also sections whereas categories are less obstrusive). Categories furthermore help to classify articles, and as noted above being a failed or withdrawn nominee does help to define the notability of those individuals in a substantial way. Simply on the numbers, there was insufficient consensus to delete. For these two cats, there were two keeps (unnamed and Sefrigle) and three deletes (Otto4711, mikedk9109, and nominator Xdamr). 60% with virtually no discussion should have been "no consensus". Based on these substantive and procedural issues, I ask that the deletion be overturned. Chaser - T 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (with editing and some writing credit to Postdlf)
|
| 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. |
|
{{Infoboxneeded}}'s TFD discussion appeared to have a(n admittedly weak) consensus of delete and move to {{Infoboxrequested}}, which had been created during the debate AFAIK. As part of that closure, ^demon (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) deleted both Infoboxneeded and Infoboxrequested. Should Infoboxrequested have been deleted? If not, I'd like some discussion on the merits of restoring it, if only because it allows you to specify a particular template to be used on that article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:19, 9 June 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 overwhelmingly endorsed. On Lucie-marie's complaints:
I think the debate was concluded to early and there was no concensus either way regarding the outcome of the debate.--Lucy-marie 18:23, 9 June 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 hope I did this correctly. Dear administrator. Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers. They are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is by far, not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on. Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. Their concern was that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 . Unfortunately, EditorEsquire, in the Loyola Law School talk page, presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restor the page and wait for the discussion in the Loyola Law School talk page to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval.} Updatethis12 18:10, 9 June 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 supposedly because of a lack of assertion of notability. However, I maintain that the specific claim "Onesidzero is also the co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis which he runs alongside fine artist/designer Gurps Kaur," constitutes at least an assertion of notability. Whether the assertion actually constitutes notability or not is debatable, but I don't think this is obvious enough to deserve a speedy. (Note, I did create the article, but only because it was requested at Articles For Creation. I felt at the time that the sources listed were sufficient evidence of notability, though I was open to discussion otherwise; I certainly didn't expect a speedy.) Powers T 16:02, 4 June 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. |
|
(Third AfD Nomination) Closed for "gross violations of WP:BLP", ignoring a large body of opinion presented that WP:BLP was not being violated, the article was well sourced, and the subject was a notable part of Internet history and usenet culture. This should have been closed as 'No consensus', but the closing admin has used his own opinion that WP:BLP nominations should be closed when there is no consensus. This is the third attempt to have this article deleted, and this will be the second time this AfD in particular has been inappropriately closed. Barberio 16:14, 9 June 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 debate simply was not weighted properly by the closing admin. I'm trying extremely hard to assume good faith about the whole thing, so let's go over the discussion: The keep suggestions were mostly based in policy - noting the subject's national records in her sport, noting her notoriety stemming from the internet fame she has received (both of which are noted here: [88]) and noting the multiple, reliable, non-trivial coverage she has received both as an athlete and as the subject of her internet fame. There were a few questionable comments (noting only her records, "holds WP's interest," Google counting, age discrimination, citing Star Wars kid), but the vast majority of keep comments were strongly rooted in policy, many debunking the arguments made by the delete suggestions. What did the delete suggestions cite? WP:BLP, which this article met with flying colors, ranging from reliable sourcing to undue weight concerns, as noted numerous times by the keep voters. Many cited non-notability (often per WP:BIO), one even suggesting a speedy deletion, which was not at all supported by policy due to the numerous sources and noted as such, others "human decency," because the subject has not been happy with her fame (which is dealt with through BLP and was, again, addressed fully via sources), one comment questioning the legitimacy of the sources (and since one was the Washington Post and two others were internationally respected papers, this was easily countered), one questioning her record as compared to the overall record (an odd statement that has nothing to do with anything), three blatant misstatements of what the sources say (about records and about her notability, the latter very bizarre), one delete without extra comment, one citing WP:POINT (huh?), one blaming "male hormones," one person who !voted twice, one blaming "masturbating neanderthal bloggers," oen blaming "drooling idiots" and an incorrect weighing of the arguments at the initial DRV, one simply asking "why the hell is this still up for debate," one citing that a person interviewed by the Post "doesn't want the attention," one blaming "bottom feeders and bloggers," one simply asking "please...," and a couple simply saying "so what, she's a high school athlete." There was also a pretty heavy sock farm that I'm confident got dealt with properly. Every one of those delete suggestions were addressed using policy, guidelines, and basic knowledge of how we do things here. Yet, somehow, User:Coredesat, who closed the discussion as delete, somehow found the strength of argument to be on the side with no policy arguments that weren't adequately countered. A question as to what arguments swayed him did not garnish a response, and his closing statement even completely ignored policy, which is entirely problematic. The last DRV was closed as an overturning of the deletion, while noting that there were BLP deletions in the past that may have met muster. This ambiguous closure has been erroneously interpreted as saying that no mention of her internet fame can be put in the article. I'm hoping this time that those taking part in the discussion will actually use policy properly, and this will be closed due to the proper weight of knowledge. The closure was simply interpreted improperly, and thus is under DRV's purview. This article needs to be undeleted. To the closing admin - make sure you note which policy arguments are being used here when you close this - DRV is not a vote count, and we need to fix our mistakes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 9 June 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. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Category:Fictional_ninjas said to go here (after another told me to go there). You know, it's getting kind of tiresome. My arguments are there. In very short: it's Category:Fictional samurai not Category:Fictional samurais, and Category:Historical ninja not Category:Historical ninjas. Also: Ninja in fiction as the main article. Every serious source uses "ninja" as a plural form; "ninjas' is a popculture word used by teenagers and in bad (or badly-translated) movies (these movies were actually an argument for "ninjas"). Dictionaries use both forms, but there's just no reason to favour "ninjas" and several to favour "ninja" (above). --HanzoHattori 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 8 June 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The old article was created by someone who was banned. I am not that person, I am not banned, and I didn't know that, but that was the reason that it was deleted before, and because of that it was deleted again using TWINKLE. Besides that, there was no reason to delete the article. I wasn't even done writing it yet! Shaymus22 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As for reliable sources, I have these, pasted from my saved text-based copy of the article:
Also, keep in mind that I wasn't done writing the article. If you want more sources, I can easily get them for you. --Shaymus22 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Joystiq is not trivial.
"ExtraLife" is NOT a common term in video games. "Extra Life", which is what you are thinking of, is not even a common term in video games anymore. Even so, if a google test is useless, how would you suggest that I prove the notability of ExtraLife? By telling you, perhaps, that they're featured on ustream? That they're sponsored by Godaddy.com? That they've interviewed Veronica Belmont of CNET? Perhaps I could tell you about how Scott Johnson created the largest World of Warcraft guild, of which Leo Laporte is a member? Would it be notable enough if I was to tell you about how Scott Johnson will soon be releasing an ExtraLife TV (video podcast) in which he will interview the creator of the "Will it blend?" Blendtec commercials? I can go on (and on and on), if none of these are notable enough for you. You see, I would have written about all of this in the article, but for one problem - it was deleted. That is why I'm here, typing this, arguing with you. I'm certain that I'm right - just tell me how I can prove it to you! --Shaymus22 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There's more if you want me to dig it up. That, and there's also all of the magazines and articles that they've been featured in...and no, they're not high school magazines. --Shaymus22 00:41, 9 June 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's decision conformed with policy, but current events, I believe, have caught up with the consensus, and, I believe, show the wrong choice was made.
Peter Brownback and Keith J. Allred dismissed all the charges against the two remaining Guantanamo captives who faced charges before Guantanamo military commissions -- because of the distinction between "enemy combatants" and unlawful enemy combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 only authorized the DoD to charge "unlawful enemy combatants", but none of the Guantanamo captives had an AR 190-8 Tribunal convened to determine that they were unlawful combatants. IMO, Events caught up with us. IMO, those who argued that the distinction was not noteworthy would probably all now agree that they were mistaken. The article could be rewritten. But given that a perfectly good article had already been written, IMO, it should be restored. Unfortunately the closing admin can't be reached. Unfortunate, because this is a current event, and it would be good if the wikipedia could flexible enough to restore this article ASAP. Geo Swan 19:26, 8 June 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 O.R. and the current article Gravitational Waves only deals with low-frequency GW, so by the wieght rule High-Freq. GW is needed to balance that out. Please restore the page. Csblack 18:59, 8 June 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 several links in the 'notable natives' section that have been removed -- for some reason the above general link doesn't work, but if you directly use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eskilstuna&action=edit§ion=2 you will get there 217.67.138.100 16:00, 8 June 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 Spam, Not COI and no discussion, was done by a user that was upset because, I afd two of his article, this product is noteable, as defined by wiki. Saying that this is a confilt of interest article, is like saying I cannot write an artilce about DSL because we sell this service or I cannot write an article about MS Windows because I work for a store that sells MS Wildows. Since the article was new, it was not very long and I was hoping others in the SEO world would expand upon the work. Akc9000 13:49, 8 June 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. |
|
Please undelete this wiki, it is very informative. If admins are going to be hardcore about the 'reasons behind' why articles exist, than why do articles like "What, What in the butt?" exist. Come off it and restore the article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.84.221 (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. |
|
The Review that bared the article was a mass deletion where the result was decided because only the Wiki Project members wanted to keep and fix the articles. i find it very wrong that the votes of the project members were ignored because it send a message that some projects are not worth listening to i feel that references to something that may be obscure in the english speaking world deserve to be in the English wiki This info was not transwikied beyond the answers.com copy of the article i did every thing i could to cite the article and merged some of the other notable versions of the unit in to one Article. If given a chance and some time withe the project it would be up to standards. I demonstrated in the new opening how often this very model appers in the gundam universe. Jeffpiatt 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
but what i can't figure out is that even if i try to add how notable The Hi-Zack is the article is judged for the lower paragraphs i was trying to model the article after the one on the [Zaku II] and merge in the one shot ms that were told in storyline were decedents of the model in order to prove notabilty i need to use plot details but if i add too many it would be removed as have a long plot summery. This mobile suit got to be in 2 gundam series and the hobby version was in the 4th movie in the gundam franchise. I removed the Advance of zeta units due to the fact the manga and photo novels are harder to get in the us but i should at least get to work on the ones in the animation.Jeffpiatt 12:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that all of the basic info is written in a in universe style in the scource material i could start sourcing episodes the verients appear in but the Hi-zack and the other ms need to be treated like the Pokemon articles or the other scifi articles i was trying to keep it from being the copy and paste job the original article was. i am stil trying to figure out what else i could but in the gundam wika does not even have a good chunk of the info the wikipedia crew removed i was I was even thinking that the entire RMS-XXX line form the Zeta to CCA era of the gundam Franchise could be made in to one page. but i thought it was set up where the hi-zack was linked to the ms of the gundam x series witch has yet to come to the us. The lead article on the Dijeh was an ms that only made it to at least 2 episodes of the TV series and was only notable for being used by Amaro Ray the main character of the first gundam series. while this is a rant i really want to find a way to work this info in in some form short of turning the list in to one long article. Jeffpiatt 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I was actually trying to get up to the standerds of the gundam articles but the hi-zack was no worse than any of the star wars articles most of the profiles are in universe and need to be deleted.Jeffpiatt 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC) my point was made in the first revies the article is easy to source the orignal debate seemed to become a witch hunt if anything it needs to be merged with the rest of the missing zeta articles.Jeffpiatt 03:53, 10 June 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. |
|
Dr. Camila Janniger is a full professor on my voluntary faculty at the New Jersey Medical School. She has far superior credentials than many other physicians listed on Wikipedia. She has written 34 book chapters and 143 full articles. You can verify most of her full articles using pubmed, which using Janniger CK gives 133. Please reinsert her into Wikipedia. 2002–present Clinical Professor, Dermatology; Clinical Associate Professor, Pediatrics; Chief, Pediatric Dermatology, UMDNJ—New Jersey Medical School Honors & Awards Multiple Dean's prizes (monetary awards) for academic excellence, Medical Academy of Warsaw Charter Member, Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society, New Jersey Medical School Chapter Fellow, American Academy of Dermatology Member, National Tuberous Sclerosis Association Professional Advisory Board (1993-1996) Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare (1st edition, 1997-1998) Editorial Activities Member, Editorial Board, Cutis (1991-present) Co-editor, Cutis, Special Issues, World Congress (1992) and Pediatric Dermatology (1996) Founding Pediatric Dermatology Editor, Cutis (1992-present) Member, Scientific Committee (International Editorial Advisory Board), Mikologia Lekarska Medical Mycology (Wroclaw) (1997-present) Managing Editor, eMedicine Dermatology (2006-present) Member, Editorial Board, Dermatologia Kliniczna (Wroclaw), (2005-present) Member, Editorial Board, SKINMed (2007-present) Dr. Janniger is someone of the highest ethical standards.
Robert A. Schwartz MD, MPH, FAAD, FACP (roschwar@umdnj.edu)
Professor and Head, Dermatology
New Jersey Medical School 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 7 June 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Personal joke page, intended to be a complement to WP:BJAODN. It had been deleted as an "abandoned sandbox" during a dispute (over the mass deletion of WP:BJAODN articles) with the deleting admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and it was NOT a sandbox. It contains material sporked from Biala (Hasidic dynasty), which can be attributed on the basis of the creation date of the "Hasidic nonsense" article and some work on documentation of the edit history. Since some subpages of BJAODN were restored to allow work, it follows that this non-sandbox also be restored to permit me to work on attribution, too. If this article is not fit for Wikipedia, I am ok with a history-only undeletion which would allow proper attribution to the authors of the Biala (Hasidic dynasty) page, and subsequent removal to Uncyclopedia. — Rickyrab
Restore history to permit re-creation of any appropriate material in whatever format at whatever location consensus agrees on. I can understand considering it abandoned since it had not been worked on since August 06, but I accept the assurances of the editor involved that it will be used appropriately. it is good to start with a straightforward one like this.DGG 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sporked to Uncyclopedia. Original edit information/ attribution was part of first edit, but then blanked; however, it's there for anyone who wants to look. See [90] — Rickyrab | Talk 01:40, 13 June 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 Evil Spartan 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The sudden speedy deletion of this article while it was under considerable debate and discussion is way out of line. Closing admin cites that it is recreated content/promotional material. Although the article existed before, this version was not recreated with the deleted material and should not qualify as a speedy deletion. As far as calling it promotional material, again, there is significant discussion going on regarding the fate of this article and how to make an encyclopedic topic out of it. Overturn the speedy deletion of this article as well as Brown's gas and allow the AfD debate to come to a conclusion on this topic. Note this has gone through multiple AfD discussions, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination) . Also note previous DRV on the topic which concluded with the unprotection of these articles and allowed for recreation - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_14 The speedy deletion in the midst of a constructive debate is not helpful to reaching any kind of consensus on this topic and should be overturned. Arkyan • (talk) 15:32, 7 June 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 unanimous AfD a year ago, but was just speedied as NN. It's apparently notable in its field. Lots of blog/forum links: for example, [91], [92], [93], [94] Overturn as nom. SarekOfVulcan 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Seemingly a purported POV-aligned deletion campaign without proper discussions following a debate in ru ([95]). Notice the brief wiping out links to the page in other articles by User:Minor_edit ([96]). --ssr 15:49, 7 June 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 company and publisher of well-known ranking guides. Nearly every law school in the country provides it to their students (e.g. [97]), numerous legal commentators discuss the rankings (e.g. [98]) and many large firms cite their Vault rankings in press releases (e.g. [99]). There's no way it should have been speedily deleted. Cheapestcostavoider 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 6 June 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a notable software product. See TheGlobeandMail, ITWeek, Netscape Tech 64.178.96.168 23:27, 6 June 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 about a club or group that does not assert significance is incorrect and therefore censoring and deleting this artice is ridiculous, unfair, and a bit ironic. PLease overturn and place back up Vulpineny 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — Vulpineney (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. |
|
This image was speedy deleted by BetacommandBot for failure to provide a fair use rationale despite my having provided a fair-use rationale. As the page was deleted, I cannot repeat the actual text of the rationale, but suffice to say it conformed with image and copyright policies. In addition, I am the person who drew the original picture that was scanned for the image, which I stated in the rationale, yet this fact was also ignored. Agent 86 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Comment: the actual text of the rationale was I am the artist who drew this image. This image is not replaceable with free content. The image is used in conjunction for the main subject of the article, being the British Columbia Youth Parliament, whose logo this is. The the image is being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. Fram 09:57, 6 June 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 was speedy deleted by BetacommandBot for failure to provide a fair use rationale despite my having provided a fair-use rationale. As the page was deleted, I cannot repeat the actual text of the rationale, but suffice to say it conformed with image and copyright policies. Agent 86 07:16, 6 June 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 in March 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Street Baptist Church) as a supposedly non-notable church, despite the fact that is the largest church in Alabama or close to it (I'm working on verification of that fact). User:Mailer diablo, who deleted it after an AfD last time, retrieved the original article for me. I added several sources and did some re-writing. The new article is at User:Realkyhick/Userbox. Based on these changes, I'd like to nominate this article for restoration. Thanks! Realkyhick 04:22, 6 June 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. |
|
Due process was not followed. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GayNZ.com was to keep. Alan Liefting 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 5 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was nominated for deletion at about 3 am this morning. Less than 24 hours later, a decision and a redirect made. What was the rush ? Why has insufficient time been given to allow people to even see it was nominated, let alone to comment on it ? Jeesh, not all of us are glued to Wikipedia all day long ! Aren't we meant to have 5 days to comment ? The Yeti 20:34, 5 June 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. |
|
Category was deleted after two explicit keep discussions and several implicit keeps by having users from other categories migrated to it. When the original deleting admin was contacted, she stated it could be re-created, however it was then immediately re-deleted by another admin. Contacting the other admin has failed, gathering only responses stating that his opinion of the category was reason enough to remove it, regardless of any community consensus. While this category may fall under the "all pages deleted by this user" discussion below, it is substantially different than most of the others, and can not be lumped in with them. This deletion was clearly both out-of-proccess and against established consensus, given the prior keep decisions. Most of the other categories being considered in the all-things-deleted deletion review do not have any prior consensus decisions and are of political or polemic nature (such as Category:Wikipedians who support Tibetan independence), and while this is not the proper forum for discussing the merits of the material, it is useful to note that this category does serve an encyclopedic function by helping with the administration of the thousand or so pages about or of substantial interest to wikipedia's furry fans, and should not be considered along with the political statement categories. Bushytails 17:55, 5 June 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 should not have been deleted, as it isn't a neologism and it's not a hoax either (it's Midlands slang). It's notable enough for inclusion here, and shouldn't have been deleted. It's been covered in enough LGBT British regional publications, e.g. Out Northwest, so sources are not lacking. This should be undeleted with the {{drv}}; template and relisted for debate. Just because there's no web references doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic, even though people said that in the original debate. It should never have been deleted, and this should be relisted with {{drv}}--Whitfurne333 14:13, 5 June 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. |
|
As I understand the process described in Wikipedia:Deletion review, neither I, the person who initiated the request for undeletion, or anyone else commenting here, is supposed to comment on the merits, or lack thereof, of the article in question. As I understand it, comments here are supposed to be about the process. I hope I have that right.
The closing admin closed this discussion as "delete", when only four of the nine wikipedian who participated in the discussion said they favored deletion. I believe this discussion should have been closed as "no consensus" -- not "delete". Geo Swan 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 4 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Unfair Deletion SSMatt 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Most of the information as to why this deletion was unfair is here: User_talk:Wickethewok#Bob_Ricci It seems that the only criteria that matters to admins on WP:BAND is having a reliable source. The page was deleted and the only reason given by each vote was "No reliable sources". The text on WP:BAND clearly states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any ONE of the following criteria". None of the other criteria, for which I provided a LOT of information towards, were considered. This wasted a lot of my time, since after reading WP:BAND, I was led to believe that my article met some of the criteria where only one was needed, yet it was deleted because it only didn't meet 1 criteria. SSMatt 21:43, 4 June 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 believe the article was deleted in error, no categories of [WP:CSD] apply, and the game in question is referenced in many places. Davémon 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies - the article title was indeed "Sorcerers cave", the board game. I've attempted to rectify the links above, perhaps if the article is restored the admin would be kind enough to fix the title to be Sorcerer's Cave. --Davémon 21:29, 4 June 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. |
|
Page was salted after last deletion. There is a preview of SimCity 5 in the July issue of Games For Windows magazine which confirms the title's existence. Noclip 19:08, 4 June 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 clearly another example of an out of process deletion - no categories of WP:CSD apply. While this is perhaps a discussion that the community should have, it is exactly that: not something that one administrator, however well respected he is, should take upon himself without community consensus. We should not allow one rouge administrator to hijack the process of community consensus. The Evil Spartan 18:15, 4 June 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. |
Ah, Jeffree Star. An article created numerous times, AfD'd a few times, and the subject of numerous deletion reviews that hadn't gone anywhere due to lack of source material. This is most certainly not the case now. Star has now uneqivocally met our standards for sourcing, and the article should be undeleted and allow for editing to continue. Please note, the subject has yet to go through an entire AfD. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Since some editors need to be spoonfed: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109].
|
| 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. |
|
Technical and informative description of a major software, Bindows www.bindows.net is a market leader in the field of Ajax framework. Bindows is in use by 91 of the Fortune 100 companies). Here are some links about Bindows: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/27/48FEajax_1.html http://mb.bindows.net/news/MBT_Accessibility_PR_6-12-06.pdf http://web2journal.com/read/187444.htm http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1895,2008931,00.asp http://www.fcw.com/article94879-06-13-06-Web http://solutions.journaldunet.com http://www.bindows.jp http://www.bindows.ru http://www.bindows.net.cn http://www.bindows.fr http://skypoetsworld.blogspot.com/index.html http://blogs.jetbrains.com/idea/2007/05/bindows/ A simple google search will show more than 450,000 results for Bindows... Ronm4321 13:48, 4 June 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. |
|
Image deleted
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 3 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 1


