User talk:Athaenara/Archive 00

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Athaenara's Archive 00

This is an archive of discussions from November 2007 through April 2008.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.

Archive 00 → Archive 0

1 Deletion discussions
- 1.1 2007
- 1.2 2008

Deletion discussions

The Wikipedia:Deletion policy describes how pages which do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. See also:

2007

Rational mysticism

You deleted the term rational mysticism, a concept which I and a number of scientifically oriented individuals consider an important concept. There was certainly research included in the article. Do you find the term somehow offensive or is it some other personal opinion which you are expressing. I check my watch list frequently and this term was on my watch list. I find no notification that the term was to be deleted. How did you manage to circumvent the notification? I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the deletion and dispute this deletion. Richard Dates —Preceding comment was added at 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion at 06:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) by Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x), whose concern was that the article was a violation of the no original research policy. In accordance with proposed deletion policy, it was deleted at 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

You may propose it for deletion review if you wish. — Athaenara ✉ 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 1: If you want to continue to work on the article to bring it up to policies and guidelines for inclusion, I can restore the previous content as a subpage in your user space to aid that process. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: I went ahead with it—I can delete that at your request if you do not want it in your user space. — Athaenara ✉ 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the page, the page was proded, so he is contesting a prod. Prodego ^talk 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your solution was appropriate. — Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to WP:AFD, so if you would like to comment, here you are. Prodego ^talk 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what this prod stuff is. All I know is that this term doesn't come from my original research. It discussed widely on the web. It was used as a core concept in a sermon by the former head of the Unitarian-Universalist Association, John Buehrens. It seems to be a key concept for a lot of significant people more important than me or most wikepedia editors. Sorry, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia technicalities like 'prod'. Richard Dates —Preceding comment was added at 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume you were familiar with the term*; that's why I didn't use it when I replied to you :-)

(*It's shorthand for proposed deletion.)

By its very nature, this encyclopedia covers far more topics than can be within the scope of any single editor. That is one of the reasons for the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for sourcing the content which is added to it: we must have something upon which we can rely when we're researching and developing material, whether or not we're familiar with it ourselves. — Athaenara ✉ 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous answers and constructive work on the concept rational mysticism. It seems with the heat it has generated, it must have a bit of emotional impact for some of the other editors. It seems to be growing into a notable idea but definitely not a movement...yet. Richard Dates 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Your revision and work on the rational mysticism continues to improve the article .Richard Dates 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been very positively impressed by your contributions to this article. There is now a lot of what appears to be good info in the discussion section which might be added to the main portion. I don't think I have the knowledge to do that properly. Any ideas? Richard Dates (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page, some of the information was kind of interesting, some of it was POV, some was both. I spent a lot of time finding references which established the notability of the subject itself last month and don't presently have an interest in expanding the article. — Athaenara ✉ 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AtHomeNet

→ In re: deletion of AtHomeNet article. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet.

This is the user Edenrage, and I can't figure out how to post a new post on this thing....

I'm kind of new at this, but I saw your name under the deletion for the page AtHomeNet, which was marked as ana advertisement. I amde sure the page only stated facts, and I lookad at the profiles for IBM, COke, and some other companies, and there pages had far more info which could be construed as advertisement. Everything on the AtHomenet page is verifiable, so how do I go about getting it undeleted? Also, if somehow it does not meet the criteria, please give me a specific example of how it does not.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The venue you seek is Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Why was my page deleted? is also helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Melon Juice

→ In re: deletion of Melon Juice article.

I'm curious, why did you delete this page? ChaosAkita (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:ChaosAkita#Speedy deletion of Melon Juice. — Athaenara ✉ 04:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

VIN codes

→ In re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 21#List of Ford VIN codes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIN Codes.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Ford VIN codes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. On the 13th December you deleted Volvo VIN Numbers one of a number of articles relating to VIN codes these have been list for review. Gnan garra 06:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

Ultra Sonic Edukators deletion

→ In re: deletion of Ultra Sonic Edukators article.

I noticed today that you recently deleted the entry for the band Ultra Sonic Edukators. You didn't leave a reason with the deletion log, so I wanted to ask if you could please give a reason.

The entry has been there for nearly a year now and ironically the band has recently been signed to a label and will soon be in the studio recording in Los Angeles with some well known names in the music industry. They have been recognized by Rolling Stone magazine as one of the top 25 bands on MySpace and are regularly playing at well known Chicago venues.

Sean Nolan 70.131.221.139 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that no reason was given is false. From the deletion log itself:

“Expired prod. Concern was: does not meet WP:MUSIC. Created by Special:Contributions/Japod.”

The article has been deleted at least three times. — Athaenara ✉ 05:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 1: According to this you are a parent of one of the band members, so the conflict of interest guideline applies as well as the notability (music) guideline. — Athaenara ✉ 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 2: User Gpersha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) re-created the article in February 2008. — Athaenara ✉ 07:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about deletion

→ In re: deletion of The Anna Cabrini Chronicles article. See also: Special:WhatLinksHere/The Anna Cabrini Chronicles.

For some reason my Wikipedia page on my favorite film, "The Anna Cabrini Chronicles," an award-winning avant-garde and experimental film, was deleted. I'm not sure why. The reasons state that it was "advertising," but I don't see how. I included everything I could possibly find about this film, all of its IMDB information, etc. So why is it not allowed to have a Wikipedia page? I see a lot of film Wikipedia pages, why is mine different? How can I have it re-instated? Thank you. -Bionicplatypus. 11 Jan 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bionicplatypus (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The only sources were the film's proprietary website, the IMDb, MySpace, and YouTube, none of which meet the Wikipedia policies which are explained in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. You may post your concerns on Wikipedia:Deletion review if you like. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking Dictionary

→ In re: deletion of Speaking Dictionary article. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Dictionary.

I have been helping Susan Webb with the Speaking Dictionary article, which has now been deleted under 'blatant adverting'. Having been accused of being trigger happy with CSDs myself, I can quite safely say it breached absolutely no guidelines - but if there was sufficient reason for a CSD in your opinion, then I will quite happily rewrite it from Google's cache and make sure it is within guidelines before resubmission. Sound fair? Ase nine ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User Susan E Webb is being paid by a client (who has certain specifications as for example noted here) to write Wikipedia articles which promote a company and its products.

The Wikipedia policies and guidelines which apply to this situation include:

the What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically WP:NOT#ADVERTISING
the Notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." [emphasis added]
the Neutral point of view policy
the Spam guideline
the Deletion policy

The only sources in your sandbox version of the article are the on company's website, which was the case in the deleted article. — Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say I added some press cites I found to the Speaking Dictionary article and a note on the debate page--the more I look into this thing the more I think it merits inclusion. I can see that the original source of the article is a problem, but hey that's what other editors are for right? Regards--Wageless (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good news, thanks for telling me. — Athaenara ✉ 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I spent more than an hour in the past week and nearly another today digging for sources which fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criterion. I found nothing which did not simply relay press releases. — Athaenara ✉ 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for setting up the discussion page for my Speaking Dictionary article. Do you know roughly how long such discussion pages stay active, and whether the links to them remain active after a discussion is closed? Thank you and best regards, Susan E Webb (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually about a week, as explained in Articles for deletion. Links remain active in archived discussions, although there are sometimes exceptions for linkspam and the right to vanish. Additional information is in Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. — Athaenara ✉ 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Speedel Page

→ In re: deletion of Speedel article.

Dear Athaenara,

I would like to know why you deleted the page on Speedel. As previously discussed in the talk page of the article, all the material was from a reliable source. I would like the chance to edit the article instead of it being completely deleted. 62.189.228.102 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the deletion log it was deleted per WP:CSD#G11, which is a shortcut link to the following explanation in the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria section:

"11. Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."

See also Why was my page deleted? Several links listed in the section above this one may be of interest to you, as well as Deletion review. — Athaenara ✉ 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Old user page

I see you deleted my old user page, User:Wahkeenah. I wonder if you'd mind restoring it for 24 hours so that I can retrieve a couple of things from it. Specifically, there was a barnstar thing that I forgot to grab from User talk:Wahkeenah, and probably some other talk page stuff also. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done and done with edit summary "Temporarily restoring per 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) request on User talk:Athaenara#Old user page by Special:Contributions/Baseball Bugs."

It was deleted because it was in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and was tagged as a user-requested deletion. Suggestion: why not stop asking for it to be deleted (twice now) and just archive it, or mark it historical? — Athaenara ✉ 08:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will attend to it ASAP. I did not put that category on it. That showed up sometime between July 8 and 13 of 2007, without showing up in the history, so I'm assuming that it arises from a template. In short, I was not aware it was targeted for deletion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the block notice template is where that came from. Since I'm not using the page anymore except for history (and for notices by robots of old image uploads and stuff), maybe I should take away the block notice and that would fix it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I did it to myself when I added that template. If I take that away, is it still going to get deleted? Or can it just stay as is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If a template is subst'd, the category can be removed after the template is added.

How about this one? → {{subst:Indefblockedbecause| the user requested it}}

Let me know if you need more help with this. — Athaenara ✉ 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I moved it to the top of the page. Thanks for your help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Motif (narrative)

Hi, can you please restore the contents of the article Motif (narrative)? I think that this subject is encyclopedic in nature and can be made into an encyclopedic article, which is more than just a dictionary definition. Even if you disagree, please restore the content and immediately convert the article into a redirect to Motive, in order to restore the history and let other users work on the content starting from the previous version. I am asking this because the article was deleted due to a PROD, and not a speedy or AfD, and therefore it does not require community concensus to restore its contents. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored and removed dated {{transwiki}} template. — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Connexus

→ In re: deletion of Connexus Credit Union article.
→ See also: User talk:Trackwi#Connexus and Special:DeletedContributions/Connexus.

You deleted a page created and said it was blatant advertising. I put a short hist of a company and was going to add a time line form 1935. Could you please explain to me how this is blatant advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackwi (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HollywoodChicago.com article

→ In re: deletion of HollywoodChicago.com article. See also:

Why did you delete the whole HollywoodChicago.com article with no explanation? I didn't see any concensus. In fact, I saw the article being improved per Wikipedia editors advice. Your action doesn't seem right. --68.72.135.94 (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The page HollywoodChicago.com has been recreated as a redirect. At this point I cannot do much about it without just repeating my previous edits.. which would just lead to an edit war... editors at the IP addresses Special:Contributions/216.177.119.154 and Contributions/68.72.135.94 seem mainly intent on creating the HC.com article and adding links HC.com in other article's references and sources, mentioning "Chicago film critic Axxx Fxxxxxxxx" as much as possible along the way. --Marcinjeske (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I considered undeleting it, complete with its tags

{{db-reason}} Wikipedia:CSD#G4 [re-creation of deleted material] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HollywoodChicago.com
{{dated prod}} not notable, no news coverage (excluding blog links and itself), references are not ABOUT hollywoodchicago, but rather point to content
{{notability}} [(Web)] {{unencyclopedic}} {{sources}} {{advert}}

but user Wilhelmina Will had already re-created it as a redirect. It is disruptive (see policies WP:NOT#ADVERTISING, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE). — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the inappropriate redirect. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site.
The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_00.

Categories: User talk archives