Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 31 January 2007
| Bishoy Habib – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
the reason is because this is a real rapper who many people and fans adore, and he is on the rise. a wikipedia page for this artist would only be appropriate. and besides, all of the information on there was true, and so was the reference. many people are not satisfied now that it has been removed, so please attend to this ASAP, thank you. Egyamanda 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Adam4Adam – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article asserts notability through verifiable sources. More can easily be provided. It is neither POV nor spammy; it was Wikified and had considerable information within. This article is being confused with previous versions with which the current author has no connection. The article was Speedy Deleted desite a "hangon" that had been there less than 24 hours. The topic of this article is a website used by men to meet for sex. The subject of this article may be creating an unjust bias against the article itself. House of Scandal 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Since when does an article creator saying something an admin doesn't like have a bearing on an article's notability? You told someone today to trust the process. To take issue with LBGT project people being informed about this discussion is contemptable. Shaundakulbara 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
More deceit, more hypocrisy, and now paranoid histrionics too.
You ignored a "hangon" and used your admin privileges to Speedy Delete an article which another admin had just restored. This was an abuse of power and when someone pointed that out (you were not called an evil power mad dictator and homophobe, that is your self-characterization) you decided to punish the author. When you volunteered to be an admin you agreed to follow guidelines and policies. Your observation of rules and policies should not be dependant on people kissing your butt. Encouraging civility doesn’t mean using the mop and keys to punish anyone who speaks to you in a manner you don’t like.
You went out of your way to kill the article. You’ve spent enormous energy trying to keep it dead. Don’t pretend like your current course of action was the path of least effort. And sir, I referred to you as an asshole indirectly, I didn’t say “Chairboy you are an asshole...I said “the editor who deleted this is an asshole.” You are one who keeps dredging up the fact that I was referring to you. Three Admins have already reminded me about civility, this was my first breech of it ever. ::Get over it, Mary! - it is NOT relevant to this article’s notability. You are the one making this about editors not about articles. When you forced this article to go to Deletion Review you thus chose to have your admin practices scrutinized and now you don't like the results. If it seems many people are saying negative things against you, if a respected Wikipedian with many peer awards says you abuse your power, if you are described as an asshole by a (different) editor who has never been rude before, if you are being cast as a villain by an usually high turnout of editors, what could be the reason? Shaundakulbara 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The following statements are quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:
Can this be any clearer? - Shaundakulbara 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Eur_20041214_tues3art.jpg – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This image was unilaterally deleted while
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Henrietta the four-legged chicken – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I wanted to add something to this article I'd read before and found it was speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as not-notable but that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria. The article was well-sourced to news events and a simple Google search [12] shows 52,000 hits, a third of that of Mike the headless chicken - seems notable enough to me in the realm of mutant chickens. An article with notability and reliably sourced shouldn't be thrown away on whim. SchmuckyTheCat 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| User:PopeofPeru – Discussion moot – trialsanderrors 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have initiated this review per the suggestion of original deleter Proto after my attempt to persuade him to reverse his decision failed. This userpage of an unbanned editor was deleted without justifiable cause as part of the reaction to the recent round of Colbert vandalism. I therefore request that the userpage be fully restored AND/OR the page be restored and the congratulatory comments be moved to the respective talk page, where they properly belong. --Hemlock Martinis 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: This is my first attempt at a deletion review, so if I breach protocol in some way I would appreciate the notification. Thanks! :D)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Dogme ELT – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dogme ELT is an internet forum for teachers of English as a second language. On November 4, 2006, the Dogme ELT article was deleted as copyvio. On November 15, 2006, the article was deleted per this AfD. The article was speedy deleted on January 30, 2007 by The JPS. A reason given for the speedy deletion was speedy deletion criteria 4 - "Recreation of deleted material". Malangthon asserts that none of the speedy deletion criteria applies and now request review of the January 30, 2007 speedy deletion by The JPS. Malangthon posted a request at ArbCom. trialsanderrors took Malangthon's request posted at ArbCom, created this deletion review request on January 31, 2007, and post the following ArbCom quote from Malangthon in support of this deletion review request: "The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy. (...) Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" This lead section was revised on February 4, 2007 by Jreferee to provide some clarification. -- Jreferee 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: User:GRBerry, 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) REBUTTAL Re: "I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be civil and assume good faith.
Re: “The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.”
“The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.”
With regard to the section beginning, "The sources offered in the new article are"
SUMMARY:
Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, articles about pumpkin-headed deer are hardly of global signficance nor a topic impacting billion dollar industries although I certainly welcome the reading of trivial and slightly bizzare phenomena. Even though such articles are usually the domain of "UrbanMyth.com", I have no doubt that it fits Wikipedia's mission as does Dogme ELT which is significant on many levels.
Malangthon 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Malangthon 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 30 January 2007
| Vlada Frey – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why have you deleted Vlada frey? I saw many people getting in his defense on article discussion page. All you "wikipedians" had in your defense is bunch of dumb rules YOU made up. You people act like you have all the knowledge of the world and if there's someone you actually haven't heard of, then that person is not worthy of your precious wikipedia. So what if Vlada doesn't have a web page? Is the internet only thing deserving merit to you? I have read a lot of magazines and newspaper articles mentioning Vlada. But, hey, they are all Eastern European, you haven't heard of them, right? And, ofcourse, that means they are not worthy. For crying out loud, man, get a little more flexible, will you? I ask for detailed answer, as why are you people so stubborn about your rules, the article didn't stated anything bizarre, sick or offending? P.S. Since the article was in process of debate, and your "rules" state that the page in this process should remain intact for seven days, why has the page been deleted two days earlier? Shmeket (misfiled at Content review, moved by GRBerry
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of tall men – Restored and relisted at AfD, along with List of tall women – trialsanderrors 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus. Note: For the sake of consistency, I am also nominating List of tall women for deletion review (the result of the AfD debate was a consensus keep). The administrator's justification for the decision is that:
However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":
The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article). At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men (per the suggestion by User:Penwhale, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page). Black Falcon 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Note: This article has undergone an AfD three more times (as copied from the most recent AfD): Black Falcon 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Text of the GNU Free Documentation License – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The arguments for and against this redirect were laid out in the RfD discussion. Those arguments boil down to an assertion that this redirect meets criterion 4 of the "avoid deleting such redirects" section of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? Reviewing the discussion, I do not see any reasonable way that the discussion can be interpreted as having had consensus for deletion.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wikilobbying – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikilobbying is a practice which has been known to occur, and while the word may be relatively unknown, it is at least debatable whether it is deserving of its own entry. To summarily delete it as it was without allowing any time for discussion seems very arbitrary. At the very least, it should've been allowed some time for discussion before being deleted. TV4Fun 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| chris thompson(business) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
this is a bio relating to the company cmtd. this article is an essential part of that other page Ccthompson
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Flashes Before Your Eyes – unsalted by protecting admin and new content written. Further actions at editorial descretion. – GRBerry 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was deleted and locked because no verifiable info was available - that info has now become available so the article may be created: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=012907_17. -- Wikipedical 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Order of Nine Angles – Deletion overturned, relsited at AfD – trialsanderrors 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Overturn please? The vote count was in favour of keep (4-2 with 1 other person commenting), and the AfD was started by a sockpuppet. Notability is not an issue as there are several third-party references to ONA, and the article itself had references at the bottom of the article (check the Wayback Machine) - although the article was, perhaps, not very thoroughly referenced. This sockpuppet seems to have been used to delete a few articles similar to the ONA article, perhaps for religious reasons. 72.12.133.163 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry. I mean, please overturn the deletion. Or, undelete article, reinstate article, etc.; sorry, I'm new to this process. The point is, it was a vote to keep, but the article got deleted anyway.72.12.133.163 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 29 January 2007
| Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was deleted for a legitamate Pro Wrestling Company that provided a history and ability to find out the current historical information of wrestling in the Central New York Region. The suggestion that only one person contributed context is false. People seeking this information no longer have a place to go. Rock345 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
So you're telling me that having the NWA/TNA Championship defended twice in a federation makes it not noteable. In fact, that's what I was going on their to update. If you're going to let other originizations in the area run wiki sites with less information just becasue they are a year older that's fine. Just letting you know I disagree with it. Rock345
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Stepanavan Youth Center – Restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AFD (here) was improperly closed. The sources to satisfy WP:N were provided. The closer noted this but deleted anyway, saying "the same can be said of a large number of youth centers". That may be true, but we do have over 1,600,000 articles. It's not like we're going to be overwhelmed by a couple hundred youth center articles (even assuming anyone actually bothers to write all those articles that might potentially pass WP:ORG). The fact is that WP:N was fulfilled, and there is no reason to selectively enforce the notability policy just because of the type of organization. Specifically, WP:ORG states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And those reliable third party sources were provided, both in the article and in the AFD. So the fact that this might let other youth centers in means very little; notability was clear, and selective enforcement is detrimental to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Comparison of BitTorrent sites – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was AfD'd in september, under the grounds that it was little more than a web directory, and not much of a comparison. I userfied a version of it before its deletion and worked on it for several months, until I had grown satisfied that the arguments made at the AfD were no longer valid. I then recreated the page, leaving a message on the talk page about why I had chosen to recreate it. This page was speedily deleted by Proto a few days later, with the summary "CSD G4 - Receaation [sic] of deleted content". As I stated above, it is correct that the article had been deleted before - however, the old version was substantially different from the new version (diff) to not qualify under CSD G4. I contacted proto informing him about his error, and asked him to either recreate it or, if he thought that that was not possible, to userfy it so I could have a backup version (I naturally didn't want to lose several months' work). He chose to userfy it. I contacted him again, a week ago, reminding him that it didn't qualify under G4, and asked him again to restore it to the mainspace. He still hasn't answered, so I chose to take it here, to DRV. As you've now probably gathered by now, I think that this page should be recreated because the new version is an actual comparison, as opposed to a web directory, that it is sourced, and that it is substantially different from the original deleted version to not satisfy CSD G4. Even though it's a weaker argument, I'd also like to point out the high traffic it used to get, and the messages asking why it was deleted (1, 2, 3). Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| T.H.E. Fox – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't normally come to deletion review, but I'm surprised at this one as there was no consensus to delete. Five votes for keep, two (or possibly three) for delete. One previous vote had been converted to keep on the basis of arguments establishing the comic's notability (namely, that it appears to be the first comic distributed online, dating to 1986 and onwards). WP:WEB is an inappropriate metric to apply to content that appeared several years before the web itself existed, and being the first "webcomic" that we know of in the world seems a clear claim to notability. In response to the closing administrator's comment, I disagree that an interview conducted with the author by the Commodore Roundtable group does not count as a source. Indeed, I would have thought them rather well-placed to determine the comic's provenance and to challenge any inaccuracies. Moreover, several facts from the interview were independently verifiable, as noted in the AfD discussion. GreenReaper 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Dave Wills (wrestling) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
On the AFD discussion of the page, there was no clear consensus of how editors felt about the article and not enough editors participating to make any consensus. 4 editors wanted to delete the article (2 of which are questionable/non-prolific editors), and 5 wanted to keep it. One of the editors found a link to a message board about the deletion of the article. Despite valid reasons given on both sides, it was deleted early under WP:SNOW. There was no barrage of keep/delete votes, and the editors did not give enough time to others to find reliable sources (although the article did list some) and just deleted it. Booshakla 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Clock Crew – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
They are an active community (www.clockcrew.cc). See Talk:Clock Crew for more on why this article should be back on Wikipedia. The last admin to change the article is on break. Lurcho 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Bay Ridge Christian College – 2007 revisions userfied – GRBerry 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I would request a review of the deletion of the above article. While the college does not currently hold accreditation they have applied. Several pages link to the college to include Church of God (Anderson), Warner Pacific College, and Association of Christian College Athletics. Additionally, I am currently researching the colleges move from Mississippi to Texas as a result of threats from the KKK. This would give the college notoriety from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement perspective.
Thank you for the review/discussion. Much of my original research into the college ("finding the RSs that say X") was contained in the article. Is there anyway to retire the information without starting from scratch to build the page in my user space? On the personnel comment note: I'm a little disappointed in the response tone in what I considered a legitimate request for review. I in no way wanted to present myself as a research expert, but instead was simply stating that I was looking for additional sources on the college. Bay Ridge Christian College is a small institution with limited funding and an interesting history to African-Americans and members of the Church of God (Anderson) movement. I was not attempting to do any free advertising for the college, but was instead trying to provide information on a top which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 28 January 2007
| Bill Madden – New article moved into mainspace as requested – trialsanderrors 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
see comments below please ww 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I am new to Wikipedia. On January 9, my very first and relatively new article, Bill Madden, was nominated for deletion for failing WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I noted in my Keep vote that I would modify the article so that it would prima facie and on its face assert the relevant points in WP:MUSIC specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists, and fully substantiate as defined in WP:V. Between January 11 and January 15, I re-wrote my article to address these points. Unfortunately, on January 16, my article was deleted. I acknowledge that my article as originally posted was poorly written and in "bad shape". However, I believe that it warranted at least a {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} tag initially rather than a nomination for delete. As a newbie, I clearly understood the invitation from Wikipedia to be bold and also understood that, although my writing may not be up to par with experienced Wikipedians, that the community would assume good faith in my writing (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). I'm writing to ask that you please reconsider the deletion and consider my undeletion request for the following reasons:
For all of the above noted reasons, I kindly request that you consider my undeletion request and reinstate the most recent version of the Bill Madden article which can be found at the moment at User:Windwall/Bill_Madden. Please note that this version is different than the one that was discussed earlier (before deletion) as this version contains all of the recommended changes. Thank you, Windwall 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Potter Puppet Pals – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Both Potter Puppet Pals and its creator, Lemon Demon, have been covered by the Boston Globe, establishing notoriety. The least that should happen is a merge of Potter Puppet Pals into Neil Cicierega. JNighthawk 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Talk:Long Island Electric Railway – Article created, talk page restored – trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This had a template like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, telling admins "please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article", and it had similar information that I compiled. NE2 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hasbara Fellowships – Copyvio version replaced with new article – trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Out-of-process deletion John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC) This article was deleted without an AfD or proper use of a copyvio template by "20:48, 9 January 2007 RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hasbara Fellowships" (fails WP:N, WP:COPY)". This left several articles with redlinks. The article had been previously edited by multiple editors over a period of time, and had settled on a brief article with a cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction. A copy of the article can be seen here on answers.com, since the Wikipedia copy is now inaccessible until restored. --John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Princess Charming – Deleted version replaced by sourced article – trialsanderrors 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A newspaper article indicated that the pilot episode of the show will be aired this Monday.[29] and another user created a much better article on its talk page. -Danngarcia 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Mywebber.com – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
the web site has been release and is a real company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywebber (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Score (magazine) – Pre-December 23, 2006 revisions restored and relisted at AfD. – Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted and protected from recreation, apparently without going through the AFD process. This is a major magazine with wide distribution in the United States, and while the article that was deleted consisted of only one line of text, it is expandable. As an admin, I have restored the page, however it appears other steps need to be take to remove the protection, which is why I'm going through this step. 23skidoo 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 27 January 2007
| Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno – restored by deleting admin and merged to group by another Wikipedian. – GRBerry 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Studio albums by a notable band (Happysad) speedy deleted by Proto on the grounds of insufficient notability. Notability criteria guideline for music says that the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Blood Krupters – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I think that this page should not be deleted as it is a history of a gang and nothing is bad about it! Please undelete it! I will be very thankfull! Sapp Krupter 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Janet Balaskas – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Administrator appeared to overlook the extensive evidence that she is a notable author and speaker on natural childbirth, particlarly provided by the latter comments on the AFD. She coined the phrase "Active Birth" A Google Search shows some 71,000 uses of the term. She has published six books. I can't see that this fails our notability requirements! Maustrauser 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Marsden-Donnelly harassment case – Overturn speedy deletion, retitle and list at AFD again. See the long form (6 paragraphs) of the closers comment within. As an editor, the article will also be stubbed before listing again. – GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Long form of closer's comment: The larger editorial community would probably look at the article the same way they did when the last AFD pointed them at the ArbComm case - they came up with an overwhelming keep result. So we get a cycle of 1) speedy deletion, 2) deletion review overturn, 3) AFD keep, 1) speedy deletion, etc.... We've already been around the cycle once; this is the second time at deletion review. The last ArbComm decision came right in the middle of the AFD that was closed at keep, but what was going to happen was clear to a reader that choose to look even before the AFD started. The AFD result was also obvious at the time the ArbComm closed their case, but I find no evidence that the last deletion review and current AFD had been pointed out to them. While the cycle is not as fast moving as a wheel war, this isn't much better either, and the cycle is the natural consequence of the ArbComm case. (Anyone who has previously undeleted or speedy deleted and repeats that action is warned that this could be considered a wheel war, including myself if we get a third cycle.) I therefore take guidance from the policy on wheel wars, that dispute resolution should be used as an attempt to break the cycle. There are too many parties (42 here alone, disregarding banned users) for one on one discussion to reach a decision. The normal forum for discussing article deletion is AfD, and nobody endorsed the one proposal to use a different forum, so that is where we will go. There is fairly weak evidence here of a consensus that we should not have an article at this title, so moving to a new title is part of the close, but the specific title I choose is not. And the ArbComm case says that any editor can stub the articles related to RM. So the close here overturns the speedy deletion, as per the Undeletion policy and brings the article to AFD per both the Undeletion policy and the wheel war policy. I will then, as an editor, move the page to one of the possible better titles and dramatically trim down the article. After that, I will complete the close here by listing at AFD. A possible compromise outcome that we might be better served by putting a paragraph or two into History of Simon Fraser University was discussed, and is one of the initially proposed RfC. Unfortunately, that one-edit stub would also start suffering undue weight problems and be at risk of failing to remain in a state satisfying WP:BLP if even two paragraphs from this was just dropped in there. Additionally, many of the later keep deleted opiners that said keep deleted per above without clarification thereby left it uncertain if they support or oppose this outcome. One even managed to say per multiple names, some of whom support and some of whom oppose this possible outcome. I hope that the AFD can clarify whether this idea is supported by consensus. GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sad to say this is back at Deletion Review for the second time:
I have since tried to negotiate with SlimVirgin (by email) to have the article undeleted, but she has not agreed to do so. Discussion on deletion has also taken place at: Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case and Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive2. I don't dare to summarize the discussion, however it should be noted that much of it comes from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. User:Stompin' Tom, who suggested the most recent speedy deletion, is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. In my opinion, no basis in Wikipedia policy has been given for deletion. A person familiar with Canadian news over the past ten years would not consider this to be a sub-article of Rachel Marsden, or vice-versa. Half an hour of research easily establishes that the case soars above any notability bar we have, by a factor of ten at least. See the cross-section of newspaper articles compiled at Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources . Most of the items in numbers 106 to 299 deal directly with the case, and most of the rest make mention of it. The article should be expanded to discuss its The energy spent putting this article through deletions and undeletions would have been much better spent on constructively discussing concerns on the Talk page. Kla'quot 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Per Fred. However, it might be appropriate to include some of this material in Simon Fraser University. The notable event was not the Marsden-Donelly case itself, but the fact that this case prompted a review of the handling of harassment cases that resulted in several old cases being overturned and the resignation of the university president. A brief description of the Marsden case in the context of the overall controversy at SFU might be appropriate. Naming the article after Marsden is by itself a BLP/undue weight violation--it would be like writing an article about the Trojan War calling it the Paris-Helen affair. Thatcher131 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Pawn Game – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Well written real page, is notable. It was deleted due to (nn web) I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive the quality of what I am doing. Pawn Game I believe is a notable game, and it worthy of staying up. Just like Stick arena is because they are basically the same thing. it is a game that is created and is playable, forums, domain etc. I will keep it updated. I do not know what to say? I am new, but I love wikipedia, but this is my first ever created submission, besides minor edits, etc.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 26 January 2007
| Bought Science – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
IMHO, this page should not have faced speedy deletion by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. If pages such as Junk science and Sound science can exist on Wiki, then surely one for Bought science should be. Bought science is neither any more of a neologism, nor a POV, than "Junk science" or "Sound science" is, as Jeffrey alleges. NorthMiamiBeach 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I question why this page faced speedy deletion. It was not patent nonsense, nor advertising, nor a personal attack page, but rather a well written and researched article critical of the PMRA. If other Wikipedia pages can exist that are critical to issues such as global warming (i.e. the movie an Inconvenient Truth etc), or Criticisms to the 911 Movie "Loose Change" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism ), then surely one critical of the PRMA should also be allowed to exist, without being deleted. I would appreciate a Wikipedia panel review on this matter. NorthMiamiBeach 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Adam Keller court martial – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(1) The court martial is notable because (a) (2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now created an article on Adam Keller. It is a stub, which needs more work. But the bare bones are there, including reference to the court martial. He is certainly a notable-enough person to merit a Wikipedia entry. RolandR 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Charles C. Poindexter – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [51] Notability was established at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter. MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets see if there is any valid proof with this one. 172.164.250.29 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 25 January 2007
| The Game (game) – Speedy close, no new information – 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Game has previously been deleted from Wikipedia because it was not previously verifiable. However, The Game has now been published on its own web site, http://ilostthegame.org. Does this web site dedicated to The Game suffice? Hamz01 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Liz Rettig – Userfied to requestor's sandbox – 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. |
| Young Hot Rod – Deletion endorsed, recreation in userspace recommended – trialsanderrors 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
How many times do I have to tell you, he IS TOO notable! I mean, he is signed to G-Unit Records as well as Interscope (Spider Loc isn't part of Interscope, yet you have a page on him}, his single Be Easy, charted on the Billboard charts (Top R&B/Hip-Hop), and if you google him, there are several notable sources. Undelete, but if that's not possible, Unprotect, so someone with better info can recreate it. Tom Danson 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Alela Diane – Overturned and listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Alela Diane is an up-and-coming artist of renown, for whom at some point soon there will clearly need to be an article. She is already cross referenced in the psych folk and New Weird America articles. She currently has 47,000 Google hits (up from 45K yesterday), is touring in the US, and shortly in the UK. She has an All Music Guide entry. I suspect that one factor in the summary deletion of the article may have been the references to her early work being self-published. However, her album has now been issued internationally to widespread acclaim, as evidenced by a simple Google search which will show numerous positive reviews, establishing her importance as a singer-songwriter. Information should be made available on this current artist who is in the process of becoming one of international renown. Ghmyrtle 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Assburger syndrome – Löschung bestätigt (deletion endorsed) – trialsanderrors 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I think there is substantial evidence that this exists as an innocent misspelling, and the presence of a so-called "bad word" should not have automatically caused it to be seen as disparaging and used as a reason to delete the redirect. Random832 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I think the controversy at Redirects to Asperger syndrome is grounds for a speedy relist at the very least. —Random8322007-01-26 13:44 UTC (01/26 08:44 EST)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season – relisted at AFD – GRBerry 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
No reason given by closing admin. WP:CRYSTAL was cited by many delete proponents, however, content was referenced and citations inserted. A message left on the closing admin's talk page has gone unanswered. Neier 12:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| ProductWiki – Deletion endorsed among established editors – 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recently discovered the ProductWiki article was deleted from Wikipedia. I read the debate that lead to the deletion, and feel that the comments in the debate were unfair and inaccurate. I am a co-founder of ProductWiki, and we are not a spam wiki, nor new, nor an insignificant wiki. We have been growing for over 1 year, and have 13,000 products contributed by our community of almost 2,000 members. We provide a voice for the consumer, and have chosen the wiki format as the best medium. As per the WP:WEB Web notability criteria, we meet criteria #1. We have been sourced multiple times in published works, including Popular Science magazine (both print and online), the Kitchener Record, and in Ben McConnell's latest book Citizen Marketers. Ekkalvia 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 24 January 2007
| Piotr Blass – Article unsalted, draft moved to mainspace and relisted at AfD – 07:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Closing notes: I closed this DRV as the discussion is now moot. There was overwhelming concensus to unsalt and move the new draft to articlespace, which Trialanderrors acknowledged and proceeded to unsalt the articlespace location. As such, the request for unsalting, which this was, has been fufilled, and this discussion need not continue on the merits of the new draft. I moved the new draft to the article location (Piotr Blass), and immediately relisted it at AfD per the general feeling below. I ask you read my nomination, especially the "Further notes" part, where I clarify my reasons for relisting rather than alternatively simply leaving the article to sit there, as one or two of the below users suggested. I write this extended reasoning as I'm a non-administrator, however I felt that even so, this discussion will achieve nothing further open. Any general discussion about whether the draft-which-is-now-the-article should be deleted or kept should take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination), not here, and hence there is no reason to continue this. Daniel.Bryant 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
The Piotr Blass article was deleated after AfD#1 and AfD#2, largely because of lack of Wikipedia:Notability. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion. I took the new information and created a draft article here, which I would like to be included as the Piotr Blass article. The article talk page requests that this article be discussed prior to recreating it. Please review the draft article and take the steps necessary to have it included as the Piotr Blass article (relisting, overturn, etc.). Thank you. -- Jreferee 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Saul Kaiserman – no consensus to overturn – GRBerry 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'd ask that you undelete that bio/article. In support of my request, and in response to the criticisms made of the bio/article's noteworthiness, I am attaching some of my notes and relevant links below. Saul Kaiserman is a recognized leader in the field of Jewish education, and an opinion leader in the scholarship re: birkat hamazon
Devincohen 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| LoHo – Deletion endorsed, redirect set editorially – trialsanderrors 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I believe that the administrator allowed people's personal bias to interfere with the rational approach to this debate. The fact that people disagree with the tactics that caused the name LoHo to come into play 10 years ago do not take away the fact that it indeed has come into play. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment **The Village Voice, not sure if it is a Reliable Source, had a story called LES is more, and it talks about the "boutiquification" of Loho. See this link Village Voice, LES Is More, by Sarah Ferguson, March 22 - 28, 2000. It states,
While it is stil not the feature on the name, it is about the neighborhood and mentions "dubbed Loho" Juda S. Engelmayer 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Funny Farm (comic) – Speedy deletion overturned and relisted at AfD – Daniel.Bryant 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. |
| List of literary works with eponymous heroines – Deletion endorsed, sent to project space – trialsanderrors 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
follow-up deletion, no thorough discussion <KF> 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) At first there was no request for deletion at all. Rather, a contributor was hoping that the companion article, List of literary works with eponymous heroes (that one still very much work in progress), would be improved. As no deletion was requested, "speedy close" of discussion was suggested. However, at that point someone who had never contributed to either page (User:Apostrophe) suddenly requested deletion. In the wake of the ensuing debate (about the definition of "hero", whether it could ever be NPOV, where participants misinterpreted the literary term as a moral judgement), attention was also paid to the corresponding "female" list. Its deletion was only requested by four contributors (who had never contributed to it), and one of the major reasons cited was that now, after the deletion of its "male" counterpart, the list was "orphaned". In fact it had existed since 2003, had always been carefully maintained (not just by myself but also by other contributors who also seem to have been unaware of the deletion process) and is linked to by more than 20 pages. I request undeletion as this list serves at least two purposes: to show all those involved in the WikiProject Novels which articles are still missing, and mainly because it serves as a survey of works of literature with eponymous female protagonists. Minor problems—what should be included, what not, etc.—could be easily discussed, and resolved, on the talk page.
PS. If you look up my user contributions now it may seem I hardly ever contribute, but many of my edits were this list.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Speartip Alliance – Deletion endorsed – Daniel.Bryant 07:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I request that this article would be fully restored. It was deleted on reasoning that it was a gaming clan, which is true, but also the fact that it is non-nnotable, this however is not true. The 'gaming clan' is a group of Warhammer 40k players who were set up in Game Workshops recent campaign. The group wasn't unnoticed and whose actions were featured in several of the weekly reviews of the Campaign, although the group wasn't mentioned by name, and in the final international conclusion for the race that the group fought for: Medusa V Conclusion (Paragraph 7) The group is also mentioned in another Wikipedia article: The Imperial 12th Army Group which is basically our equivalent but on the 'other' side. The group also intends to have a page on Lexicanum another wiki encyclopedia. Thank you for reviewing our case and the group apologises for any inconvenience. Speartip 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The page was not intended to be about the group, i.e trying to advertise it, but about the actual object the Speartip is, basically it is like other articles on Warhammer 40,000 and not about the group of people who set it up.
That is what the subject is, it is in the world of Warhammer 40,000 a group of chaos lords who set up an alliance. Though as it was mentioned on the official warhammer website then surely it has as much right to be here as any of the other articles on things in Warhammer 40k such as the Medusa V article in which the Allaince was recognised in one of the campaign summarys (see original post). Just for complete clarification: what is calssed as a 'Gaming clan', I know what it is but I would be interested to know what the in-depth definition is. Speartip 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not intentional for it to contain information about the people. If this is accepted then I shall make sure the page has no reference to the people and only to the Alliance. You may be interested to see the page on lexicanum: The Speartip Alliance Speartip 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The notice on Lexicanum does make things look bad but it is mainly to do with the lack of sources which I have now provided, you can see that there is quite a lot of mention of the Alliance. The reason why I pointed out the article on Lexicanum is that it is somewhere where you can see what the article on Wikipedia would basically look like, with any required or requested ommisions. Speartip 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It is reliable as anything else to do with the Medusa V Campaign, Games Workshop could have not placed the group in the updates, as soon as it did so it became as official as Medusa V. There are no chatrooms on that sources list and if you are implying the group itself I request that you check my previous statesments on how the article will be about the written group and not the group of people. Speartip 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what any other administrators have to say first, if it isn't restored then i'll stick to the Lexicanum page. Speartip 08:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Administrators or Mods feel free to close this review 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:SerbiaFairUse, Template:MontenegroFairUse – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deletion was completely irresponsible. Person who proposed didn't noticed me, even this is not an ordinary template, but a product of specialist expertise. Any work created in Serbia or Montenegro may be used reasonably wherever if author of the work is mentioned. This is not the case for Florida law, but the case for the law of the country where work had been made. I am wandering what is the sense to contribute to English Wikipedia if there is no a minimum of cooperation between contributors. millosh (talk (sr:)) 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 23 January 2007
| Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is the second time around The article has been fixed tremdesly so I hope this time it will be restored. The only thing I could not find was another external link so I only have one, hope that's ok. You can find the fixed article here, make sure you look here before saying anything.Sam ov the blue sand 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Patty Columbo / Patricia Columbo – Endorse deletion, egregious WP:BLP violations and nominator has been indefinitely blocked – 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColScott, including this diff. Sources accurate (newspaper) Notability established...does not violate BLP since you cannot defame a triple murderer by definition Spawnopedia 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Coredesat, maybe you can learn something while roboting. BLP is about AVOIDING defamation of living people. Defamation involves destroying someone's reputation. By definition, a triple murderess in jail for 300 years HAS NO REPUTATION. Learn! Spawnopedia 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of tools for static code analysis – Deletion endorsed, new article created – trialsanderrors 00:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
10 minutes of no discussion is not consensus. BTW I'm not sure about the reason, so I want a real discussion! Cate | Talk 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| And The World Goes 'Round – Restore history under new article; no WP:CSD#G4 deletion has occurred, so nothing to review – 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
After I created an article for this notable off-Broadway revue of Kander and Ebb material, I was amazed to discover one once existed and was deleted after discussion by a number of people who don't seem to be particularly theater-oriented. I don't know what the original article's content was but I believe the one I created contains sufficient info to warrant its existence. SFTVLGUY2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia – Merge closure overturned, relisted at MfD – trialsanderrors 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Admin decision was to merge. Have another look at the MFD, and you'll hardly find consensus to merge at all! 5 people wanted it merged, and yet there are 30-50 editors participating in this. Can someone PLEASE urgently have another look at the MFD before the page is entirely screwed up?! Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Everywhere Girl – Deletion endorsed by established editors, redirect set – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | |||
Preemptive reminder: The AFD resulting in deletion had to be courtesty blanked due to content therein. Use courtesy here so that doesn't have to occur again. GRBerry 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
High profile article, generates lots of interest DLX 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Restore Article --Lawdy 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Over Turn!!! If the everywhere girl cant be here why can this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_baby
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.117 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
|
|||
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Smoothbeats – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article contains notable content, hastily deleted before content added Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I am writing to appeal the protected deletion of the article Smoothbeats. Smoothbeats.com is a non-profit internet radio station dedicated to supporting independent artists, running on custom-written open source software which runs many large popular internet radio stations.
I'm curious as to which claims were made that need to be backed up by citations... I suppose that the claim of being an internet radio station could be backed up by citing hundreds of messageboard posts and blog entries that mention Smoothbeats, but simply clicking on the external link to the radio station and tuning in should suffice to prove its existance. Nobody has written any articles on our free open source broadcasting solution (except us), but that lack of documentation doesn't refute the claim that we developed it. Most importantly, I'm confused as to how this article on an internet radio station is any less notable than these other 168 articles in the Internet radio category, almost none of which provide any significant content other than a blurb on who they are and a link to their web site. Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
January 2007 (UTC). |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 22 January 2007
| Tubcat – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was AfD'd, no consensus. AfD'd again, and deleted because lack of proof of notability. It turns out that the Washington Times devoted an article to Tubcat and a "Russian challenger" on March 6, 2003. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=tubcat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thus, one can assume other legitimate references to it exist, making this article verifiable and more notable. -- Zanimum 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Rusty trombone – Keep closure endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was kept after its second AfD proposal. Was kept for "I Like It" reasons. Reasons for deletion are: 1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_trombone_%282nd_nomination%29. 2) Precedent set by Keep is very bad. Prairie Muffins (preserved here) was exceedingly better cited but deleted. CyberAnth 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 21 January 2007
| IS group – Request withdrawn – 01:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
OVERTURN Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group). I am a new newbie, interested in cognitive science. I ran across this one and was fascinated. As a newbie, I did not enter into the deletion discussion. If I had, here is what I would have said. Keep. Notability is clear. Reliable sources are adequate, but thin. The discussion was cool. I found it to be more fun and interesting than many other Wikipedia entries that I read. As a newbie, I was troubled that no one mentioned Please do not bite the newcomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers) and Be bold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages). The latter refers to updating pages, but as a newbie I would also encourage support for newbies being bold about adding quality information. This particular entry is of considerable interest (at least to those in cognitive science), reasonably sourced, definitely notable, and another newbie's first attempt at adding content to Wikipedia. Don't bite the newcomers. | Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| 2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – trialsanderrors 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closed as delete. Delete votes were not properly weighed - besides "kick it in the pants," many cited a historical guideline proposal, the rest claimed "no notability" although keep suggestions indicated the obvious "notability" of a charting single. Deletion must be overturned badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hercules Cycle and Motor Company – Withdrawn – 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article deleted as alleged copyright violation, however content this cited was not duplicated from the external webpage - facts were taken from there, and other content based upon that site but rewritten 'in my own words' (as per WP copyright policy), and this was also combined with content from two other sources. The admin who deleted the page, Centrx did not place a proper notice (such as {{nothanks-sd}}) on my talk page to notify me - or even let me know which page it was that the problem was with, just left a non-specific accusatory message. Rather than specifying any particular sections of the article with which Centrx had a problem he (or she) just deleted the entire article. Article appears to have been speedily deleted - it doesn't appear to have been listed on the Copyright Problems page (WP:CP) prior to deletion or had an RFD. Note that the page the information was sourced from, http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/hercules.htm, has been altered recently. The older version is (at the time of writing) available in the Google cache. Mauls 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Jeffrey Mishlove – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The admin Jaranda abruptly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove, and deleted the article, citing WP:IAR as his(?) primary justification. The majority of those who voted in the brief RFD period before Jaranda closed it voted to "keep" the article. The article was in the midst of active discussion and revision by good faith editors (admittedly, it had some problems with unsourced material). However, it is clear that Mishlove is a well-established figure in the world of parapsychology. A large number of verifiable books and articles by Mishlove were documented, he is the host of a national television program, there is evidence that he holds a unique PhD in Parapsychology from UC Berkeley and his been the subject of magazine articles, there are 36,000 "google" hits for the guy. I request that the article be restored. BTfromLA 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Nihilist anarchism – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This deletion review is about the term "nihilist anarchism" which is claimed to be a "neologism" by user Tothebarricades. I dispute this with sourcing and notes. Others claim this is in "essay" form, which is incorrect. It is an expression of the notes that I placed during the deletion. I understand that cleanup was necessary for the article, but I also feel that attempts to achieve cleanup were not taken seriously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist anarchism and no attempt was made to engage my points while I was attempting a clean up, a summary of this can be found at Talk: Nihilist anarchism and is detailed below:
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold; it's all right. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be. Bring out all information that you can." This is also asked of administrators and was not attempted. The "discussion" on deletion failed to bring up any direct points that were questionable. Original content was claimed to be the problem, but nothing was cited, so the entry could not be fixed to avoid deletion. No suggestions were made. Based on the rules for consensus, all are to agree, though administration determines "consensus", this did not occur. If specific points were brought up they could've been answered, like most entries, cleanup would've been possible. Information was verified with sources, original content was dismissed by notes and there was a neutral point of view that did not present bias, touching all the key points for deletion, removing a basis for it. Rough consensus was also not achieved. Dominance in discussion was not weighed properly, attempts to clean up were made during the deletion process and no conversation challenged my attempts to clean-up. According to the rules of Rough consensus Administrators are to determine dominance. However that dominance has some guidelines which were ignored ""dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course)." A general sense of agreement cannot be determined when there was no attempt to engage any of my points. "*Delete" over and over is "persistance" without substance. I offered a quality response to these calls, but there wasn't even an attempt to dismiss my points. I am logging administrative abuse because of this.Brokendoor 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) I am requesting an undeletion and I am willing to be bold in cleaning up this entry. I can note the "neologism", I can change the name to "nihilist anarchy", I can shorten the entry by linking to the appropriate histories of the Russian Nihilist movement, the Narodnik and the International Workingmen's Association, adding the appropriate history to the congresses from the "influences in anarchy" section of nihilist anarchism. I can also link to Friedrich Nietzsche, Last Man, Übermensch, The will to power and use notes from an external "nihilist anarchy" site resource to express this. I can expand from the previous entry into the influences from Situationist, Post-left anarchy and Green anarchism. I can write up a critique of civilization using a variety of sources connected with the previous mentioned entries, which also plays a part in developing this tendency. Also, I can count in the influences from Postmodernism and other theories that fall around Existentialism and Nihilism. However here I would detail differences between the theories as well as similiarities. Basically, this disserves review at the least, reinstatement if possible and I am willing to work with administrators with this because I am proposing an entry in a practicing form of anarchy that draws influences from a variety of sources, which have been implied as similiar, but have only formented as both an influence (like most anarchist theories in the U.S.) and a specific tendency several years ago. The announcement that this tendency was real and defined occurred in "Nihilism, Anarchy, and the 21st Century" by Aragorn! an editor of Anarchy magazine and contributor to Green Anarchy magazine. John Zerzan and other editors of "Green Anarchy" also play a part in its developing growth and some (not John Zerzan) have identified as nihilists in this magazine and other journals. There have also been several articles written that are posted online that pretain directly to nihilist anarchy that aren't found at pistolsdrawn.org, such as High Priest Wombat's "Nihilism and Women" and Felonious Skunk's Contributing to Momentum Against Civilization. This is an attempt to expose this development. Journals like Green Anarchy and Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed discuss this tendency at length and they are the first and second largest anarchist magazine distributed in the United States. I also feel that WikiProject Deletion or Deletionism caused a rush on the process which was unnecessary. This intentional project can be hostile to developing entries and it make me uncomfortable as a learning wiki-editor and I'll go on record saying that. Please consider my points and my attempt to create this entry. I would like to engage administration so that this can be made possible, either through reinstating the entry or giving details on some of the points I made above. Brokendoor 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Shrubya – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Someone deleted this as "unlikely typo". With 31,000 Google hits, the name "Shrubya" is not very "unlikely" to be typed in, and this is no typo! --Wiwaxia 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Stirling Newberry – closed, was on DRV last week – 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't see it meeting any speedy delete reasons; not WP:LIVING, {{db-bio}}, or {{db-attack}}.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry – Speedily closed, still at AfD – 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was just created and got a deletion notice just five minutes after it was created[80]. This article didn't meet the Before nominating an AfD requirements and is completly User:Woohookitty over reacted [81]. This article is just going to be deleted for not being given a chance to be looked over by other users to clean it up. I had hoped this article would work out after I created this article but User:Woohookitty had to change its path without giving this article a chance. --Gndawydiak 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 20 January 2007
| Eye of The Keeper – Deletion endorsed – 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Eye of The Keeper was deleted by Mistake. I cannot find my original posting in any records. It was posted by me, Mv7000. If you can find it, please undelete it. All information is truthful and verifiable at www.eyeofthekeeper.com Thank you. 74.96.112.217 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Geody – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The administrator User:Bogdangiusca (who features the logo of the Italian terrorist group Red Brigades in his user page) deleted and locked this article, without even voting about it. Geody is a geographic search engine widely used especially together with NASA World Wind (in fact note that some users in Talk:NASA World Wind were surprised it was removed and then happy when it was recreated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltener (talk • contribs) 19:58, January 14, 2007
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Camp Poyntelle – Deletion endorsed – 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Non advertising material, want to fix it BRappy55 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Job for a Cowboy – Deletion overturned and replaced with new version – 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Recently failed deletion review and was told to make on a user page first. This has been done and has everything we could find for them. It is here. It was moved back to the page due to my mistake early today, as I added this review in RFPP instead of here, this resulted in it being moved back to the userspace. The two albums still have their pages, so the Band should have theirs so they all link together. There are less notable bands on Wikipedia, so these should also be added. I understand not all the information is cited correctly on the page, so if anyone could add extra cited info it would be useful aswell. Moreover, there have been different edits to that page, so an older edit, might be better than a newer edit, so may need to be reverted. AsicsTalk 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Noureddine Maamria, Dino Maamria – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was nominated with a multitude of other players who failed to meet WP:BIO (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Woolford). The question of Dino Maamria's notability was raised in passing during the discussion, however I believe it was not fully addressed. Having played for Charleston Battery and Tunisia U21s he may count as a borderline case. Robotforaday 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Proteus (WAM-V) – Overturned per discussion, to be listed for AfD – 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington with the reason of Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. We had a civil discussion here about this and we agreed that this should go through a community review. My argument for significance can be found on the article's talk page. I believe that the version in my userspace should be restored to the original location. Fosnez 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hell Yeah – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Since the article was deleted and pretected to prevent people from recreating it, the band has launched a website, been on the cover of Revolver magazine, released two singles (one to the radio and two are on myspace), and their album will be released on April 10th. In otherwords, there is a lot more information out there now than there was previously, and as such the article should be allowed to be created. Tedivm 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Further more, the band Hell Yeah is actually at the heart of a series of articles in the most recent (January/Feburary) Revolver Magazine, focusing on new releases for the upcoming year. While it may not seem it, Hell Yeah is very important to the metal community, as Vinnie Paul is coming back, and he is a legend of the scene [Pantera, Et all]. Atechi 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Matt Norman – Filmnews2007 has reposted this yet again, and removed the PROD tag, so it's now at AfD – 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Significant article on a film-maker who is notable Filmnews2007 06:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Hi there Could you please review your deletion of an article I put up that you deleted. Article Matt Norman Below is the opinion of another administrator? Thanks in advance.Filmnews2007 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Original message Re. Please tell me why you have deleted my entry - third time? Hello. I believe that the article in question is Matt Norman. I did not delete this, but after checking the deletion log I can inform that it has been deleted three times by three different administrators. The reason stated for deletion was the speedy deletion criterion A7. This criterion states that an article may be speedy deleted if it provides no assertion of notability of the subject. After viewing the last version of the article I believe that it did assert notability. I recommend you to take this article to the deletion review and try to have the deletion overturned. I hope this helps. Regards,--Húsönd 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reedit Matt Norman article. I'm not trying to do the wrong thing here but can any of you please view it and tell me its simple enough to be used in historic content in regard to Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Filmnews2007 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Cookie diet – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I remember looking at this article once and it looked like a regular article.... I came back to look up something today and its gone!! At least, I can't find it anywhere, I didn't see any deletion debate.... anyway, if its been deleted by accident or for no apparent reason, it should be brought back. Its reported on ABC [85], NBC [86], etc [87][88][89].... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:Good article – Speedily closed, repeat nomination without new information – 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Personally, I do not know the circumstances of the template being previously deleted, I feel that good articles do deserve some recognition as featured articles do (even though GAs are not at the same level as FAs). Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 19 January 2007
| Stirling Newberry – Deletion endorsed, troll blocked – 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Stirling Newberry claimed that a fair and balanced view of his biographical info on the web was "Attacking" him and "libeling" him even though it was verified through numerous third party sources. We can't allow someone to get their biographies deleted because it doesn't present them in the 100% positive light that we all desire. Turbulantsalad 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Do a simple search of him on Google, he's notable, and there's both positive and negative information about him out there, the article presented both. Turbulantsalad 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) A copy of the deleted article is posted at Stirling Newberry/workshop
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Eraser (software) – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It is notable. I believe this software to be notable, I've heard about it many times, on many forums I've seen people that have claimed to use it, and seen several times people recommend it and mention it.
The notability is unquestionable. -- Frap 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| 123 Pleasant Street – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article survived a first AfD with an overwhelming majority of users supporting keep. A first DR was opened and closed in one day with participation only the nominator and one user. A second AfD was held, this time with opinions of both keep and delete. Delete had a mere majority but not even a super-majority, let alone a consensus. Article meets requirements WP:Local and has numerous cites, high G-hit count and one substantial source from a local print media with a circulation of 30,000 documented on a website. Editors of this article have committed to continuing improvement. This article should be undeleted because it has sufficient notability and verifiable sources to survive AfD, there is no honest consensus to delete and proper procedure has not been followed. Nominator is additionally concerned that deletion represents a thwarting of consensus Edivorce 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Rogers Ltd., Inc. – Restored and listed at AfD – 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I created this page based on a link on the Middletown, Ohio page. Rogers is one of the top 20 biggest jewelry retail chains in the US, and is also historically significant in the area (which is why somebody else thought it notable enough to be mentionned in the middletown page). If the page is undeleted, I will be sure to mark it as a stub and will keep expanding it. jh75
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Atticus Clothing – Speedy restore of non-copyvio, non-General-11 revisions. – 11:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A notable clothing company. I found an older version on answers.com and I think it was deleted because it sounded like an advertisement (a section of it was a copyvio from their website). If restored, I'll cleanup the copyvio and add a bit to it. kollision 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Brastel – Deletion endorsed – 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. |
| christianforumsite – Requester appears content happy with rationale for deletion – 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Can you please recreate the article on camp poyntelle i believe it was deleted for no reason. There was an article on christianforumsite which was removed because it lacked popularity. However, I am putting this site for review because it has grown much larger than it previously was and this site appears on top lists of Google, Yahoo and MSN searches for the keyword 'christian forum'. Hence this site can be associated with this keyword. Please check this out and its alexa ranking to see if the article that was one deleted, could be restored.
131.172.4.45 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Constitution Society – Deletion endorsed. – 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
New article being written in stages Jon Roland 00:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC) This is a fairly prominent organization, founded in 1994, whose website is at or near the top in searches on constitutional terms, and many sites and organizations link to its extensive collection of online reference material.Jon Roland 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(Copy and paste of entire article removed. -- Steel 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 18 January 2007
| List of United States Representatives from Minnesota – Redirect closure overturned, further discussion at WT:USC – 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. |
| MSM-07 Z'Gok – No consensus closure overturned, article deleted – 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's high time admins started ignoring WP:ILIKEIT votes and actually began closing debates on policy. Votes with reasons such as "Suit plays a strong role in the invasion of Jaburo from the Original Mobile Suit Gundam" should be discounted. Nor should votes that say "keep because too many similar nominations all at once" be held to contribute towards any meaningful debate. This article violated and violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:FICT. Many of the keep votes were gained through meatpuppetry soliciting on an external fansite: see [93]. Overturn and delete. Moreschi Deletion! 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. – Deletion endorsed – 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was an on-going discussion of the controversial deletion of the MWHS Mami Wata Healers Society Page of which the admin has not presented convicing evidence that the article was in violation of wiki policy or in need of iimprovement. Although there was a "concensus" of having the page deleted, we believe this effort is being spearheaded by one of the admins in retaliation for us contributing heavily to an article he has written. The MWHS has presented legal and foreign documents of its legitamcy and its notability to the Diaspora communities.None of the "voters" are of the Diaspora nor of the the religions of which we pratctice. When we went to post more discussion, the arricle was removed compleltely without our being offically informed of the final discussion or outcome. We cannot notify the admin because we do not know who deleted the page. (posted by Syrthiss, as Mwhs (talk • contribs • count) had not moved the template outside the commented area) 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Ragnarok Online jobs – Deletion endorsed – 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was created to make the Ragnarok Online article shorter. Jobs are one of the most important and distinguishing components of gameplay according to Gravity itself and thus any deletion of said material represents an attempt to deny a quality article to be written about the game. If you have a problem with material which is accurate and in the attempt to document an important subject of the game, I would advise listing all Dungeons and Dragons or Final Fantasy articles discussing classes for deletion as well as removing all mention of characters or classes from the articles in question in question. And before someone comments, the subsection on "Bandit" was both inaccurate and vandalism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 17 January 2007
| Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy – Deletion endorsed – 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Rename and edit I hope will overcome problem. Also many other pages link to it and need it for information Article was deleted because it's name was "Analaytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy". Restoring the article with a new name "Analytic and Continental Philosophy" is proposed. Any content disputes can then be handled by normal editing. Lucas 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems that wiki is even more conservative than mainstream media and printing where alot more has been said on this issue; it cannot handle interesting or controversial issues if it just deletes by majority vote, since after 5 days of delete review 4 were for keepoing it, 7 against (which was coordinated), that is not even a 2/3 majority but it was deleted still. The act of suppression I take as a serious infringment. Editors have been able to work on this article and remove any particular point they see fit. There is no reason to delete it there have been many reasons to revise it. Also the article has received references from outside wikipedia, also one person on the talk page said it was the most informative they've read in philosophy wiki (which mostly just trots out old saws) It is referenced from many wikie pages, Analytic, Continetal, Philosophy, etc. --Lucas 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Irish Tenors – Edit history restored behind recreated article – 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was speedy deleted as "not notable"; But, the Irish Tenors are definitely notable. Others were working on this article and had placed the {{hangon}} tag, so I think the deletion was out of process too. This article was on my watchlist, to be created at some point. The Irish Tenors meet WP:BAND, at the very least "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network." Their concerts have been broadcast numerous time on PBS. [95] They also have other media coverage: [96] [97] [98] and further google search turns up more. And, they play at major venues such as Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts in the Washington, D.C. area [99] and Liverpool Summer Pops in the U.K. [100]. I don't like to wheel war, but think this is a clear case. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd – Deletion endorsed – 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Give us achange to prove that the actual site is notable, don't delete the friggin' talk page! 80.222.183.225 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Spazio, Tempo, Eternità – Userfied by deleting admin – 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Proxy listing for Marce1979 who re-created the page with: please recover this page, i have started my translation before the deletion and when i have saved the page is already deleted. Was deleted by Tijuana Brass as CSD A2. Flyingtoaster1337 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland – Deletion endorsed – 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
After many discussions with User:Metros232 who deleted the links section on the main Cumberland, Maryland page against that pages' talk page, I moved the links to it's own page to find some middle ground with User:Metros232, instead it was nominated for speedy deletion. These links pertain to Cumberland and the Cumberland Metro Area, are informative and have further information on topics discussed in the main page, and have been discussed in the Cumberland, Maryland talk page and the consensus was to leave them be. I would like the page deleted to be undeleted, at best the links be allowed back to the main page...but undeletion will work for me. SVRTVDude 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| rec.sport.pro-wrestling – Deletion endorsed – 10:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
deleted despite consensus TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There have been many entries that go through AFD and are kept as "no consensus" with an even larger margin of voting. The fact is the entry listed its sources (more than one) to verify notablility which the closing admin IGNORED. Coupled with the fact the whole process of this AFD was started as a bad faith nomination by a banned user who had been trying to ruin the entry for over a year. The entry even went through a period of clean up supervised by TWO admins who concluded the entry was properly notable, cited, and sourced. TruthCrusader 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Skulltag – No credible reasons advanced for overturning AfD and previous review, debate is becoming surreal. – 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Premature deletion despite posted info saying article was going to be updated in minutes.Catman847 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I had this posted a mere 3 minutes before it was proposed for deletion. Doesn't it seem that most normal people wouldn't be wanting to delete an article after it was only on for 3 minutes? It seems like the person proposing the deletion was waiting for this to pop-up so they could have it deleted. Also, the Keep-Delete vote was ignored (5-3 in favor of keeping).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:WoS game – No consensus closure endorsed – 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I realize it's taken me a bit to bring this to DRV, but I don't think it's too late. This template was closed as "no consensus". However, I believe that many who spoke in the discussion failed to understand the nature of our copyright policy. We are deleting YouTube links left and right because they might have a copyvio, whereas, this site nearly always has proven copyvios of downloadable Nintendo games: see [107], which is linked from our Bubble Bobble article. I added this link at the end of the discussion, but no one had time to look on my argument before it was closed. Patstuarttalk|edits 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Statement from closing admin: My decision in this case was slightly more complex than simply viewing a mix of delete and keep votes, and then labelling it "no consensus." Patstuart made a good point when he cited User:Dmcdevit's essay/project on the deletion of all WP:EL non-compliant YouTube links. I agree with both Dmcdevit and Patstuart on this issue. However, the implementation of Dmcdevit's initiative has been marked with controversy, and has been occasionally characterized as unilateral in nature. I felt that even though the template should be deleted, there was no consensus in the TfD debate itself, especially given that the best argument raised in favor of deletion has been judged controversial at best by the community at large. Regardless of my personal opinions on the template, I felt that it was not within my latitude to close the debate as delete. If the template in question had been an overt violation of policy, I would have invoked WP:IAR against consensus in order to benefit the encyclopedia, but in this case I did not feel the template in question fell within those bounds. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: Bubble Bobble on the ZX Spectrum was published by Firebird Software, who are owned by British Telecom. World of Spectrum has explicit permission from British Telecom to distribute their material: see http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showwrap.cgi?permit=houses/BritishTelecom.pmt (you'll have to copy and paste the link to bypass the anti deep-linking script). While there is an issue as to whether BT were within the rights of their licensing agreement to grant that permission, I think this shows that the issue isn't as simple as is being made out. Yes, a lot of the material on WoS is formally a copyright violation, but I'm not convinced that means we should delete the entire template, which does have legitimate uses. (Disclaimer: I am one of the maintainers of World of Spectrum). --Pak21 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Endorse and keep: While I agree with Pak21 that the case for Bubble Bobble for the ZX Spectrum is not a clear cut, along with a great many other titles, I removed the link a week ago when the issue was raised - just to be on the safe side. This is what should be done for any links which editors believes are copyvios, whether they are templated or not. The people responsible for the site to which the template links, do a great job in obtaining permissions, and it's incorrect to asume that a violation is in effect just because it is possible to download a particular game from WoS. Permissions have been granted from many individuals and companies (http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/). BTW: Bubble Bobble is not Nintendo property, but Taito. --Frodet 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Lil' Sonic – Deletion endorsed – 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted as CSD A7, but its creator wishes to dispute the deletion so I'm listing this on his behalf. He wrote on my talk page [108]: I understand that you needed to know why he is notable, but to clear things up, I am Lil' Sonic. Many rappers ask why me, as the youngest producer who has been given good reviews by signed musicians like Jin and Jojo didn't have a Wiki telling all about me, how young I started etc.. so skeptics would know how long I have been performing etc.. In fact a fan was the one who informed me that the page was deleted.. and that they thought their computer had a problem or something, then I got your message.. Can this please be reversed? I notably was the youngest and currently the youngest hip-hop producer in New England. That has to count as something, also because I make music that is compared to the best of the best, not to be bigheaded but i'm told this on countless occasion, please review my request and take your time to decide on any action. Thanks. Google hits for "Lil' Sonic": [109] Flyingtoaster1337 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 16 January 2007
| Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) – Article recreated with references – 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. The criteria used to justify deletion was inappropriate for the article in question - also the article documented the forthcoming release of what is in my opinion a notable single (first in three years) by a notable artist. I asked the deleting admin for his reasoning behind the deletion but have received no reply as of yet. Kurt Shaped Box 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| G.ho.st – Deletion endorsed – 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
new text as follows TareqM 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :G.ho.st, prounounced ghost, is an online operating system that provides users with a Virtual Computer space. Ghost is an acronym for Global Hosted Operating SysTem which captures the key idea that the operating system is hosted in a data center and available globaly through any browser, in contrast with traditional operating systems which are installed locally on a specific computer.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| GamerWiki – Endorse Deletion. No consensus to overturn deletion. – 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Now a substantial size (significantly larger than Encyclopedia Gamia) with mentions in The Guardian (UK) and the Accenture Digital Forum in addition to GameCentral on UK teletext and within Retro Gamer (UK magazine). Tim 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Bud Delp – Non-copyvio versions restored – 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame Horse trainer - I'm going from memory as it was a few days ago but I believe this article had a copyright violation notice and someone must have deleted it without seeing that I had come along afterward and edited it properly and removed the copyright violation tag. Please undelete this and I will double check it to ensure it meets proper standards. Thanx. Handicapper 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Able and Baker – Deletion endorsed, replaced with a redirect to Monkeys in space – 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a pre-emptive listing on deletion review, as I anticipate that
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
at least one adminstrator who disagrees.| Che-Lives – Deletion endorsed – 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
regular editors were unavailable, page notable as per google rank and BBC articles on che referencing the forum as proof of his popularity [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| MKULTRA Pop Culture – Cruftmungous fork is justly deleted, debate can continue on the parent article – 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
improper use of AfD Wyatt Riot 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Jon Roland – Endorsed by multiple people, patient explanations to the subject-and-author can be continued on his user talk page. – 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was resubmitted with different content to satisfy the established requirements for notability. The original article was created by someone else as a stub, apparently based on the subject being a candidate for public office in the upcoming 2006 election. Although one can understand that after the subject has been a candidate and not won his level of notability might cease to qualify him for inclusion, there are many other notability criteria the subject does satisfy, which can be easily verified by a web search. For example, he has been the subject of a chapter of a book written by a prominent journalist, Jonathan Karl, then a reporter for the New York Post, later a correspondent for CNN, and currently a frequent on-air reporter for ABC News. Furthermore, the subject has a prominence based on his work as editor of the digital editions of most of the more important works of constitutional history, law, and government, including most of the works of the Founders, the works they read and cited, and commentaries by their contemporaries. These online editions are not mere copies of work done by others. They are authoritative scholarly edits (some in progress) that have caused others to cite those versions as authoritative, and in some cases, unique. Most of the other copies online of these works began as copies of his work, often without attribution. That work has led to the site being linked to by many other sites, which has put the site at or near the top of search engines, and led to recognition as a leading constitutional scholar, evidence by being invited to write articles for encyclopedias, speak to conferences, and submit articles to various journals. It is suggested that on future deletion reviews, the subject be contacted and afforded an opportunity to respond to arguments for deletion. That was easily done for the subject here discussed, and was not done. The reviewers should also take the time to do a search on the name, which would have yielded abundant material to support notability, or to follow the links provided by the contributors, which often provide justification by reference that are not repeated in the body of the article, in an effort to keep the article concise. Jon Roland 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I protest the statement that I have had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for "notability". I don't keep scapbooks of such things. I selected one that came to mind, and was by someone the administrators are likely to have seen on television. I don't have long periods of time to add content in response to such demands, but must find time between other projects. Yet you consider a few hours since I added that content as "ample opportunity"? I can and will add additional sources when I find them, but that could take several days or weeks. Further, nowhere did I suggest that living persons are more notable than dead ones. I never discussed anything like that anywhere. My scholarly work is all about bringing to the public the works of notable persons, most of whom have been dead for centuries. I am loathe to assert my own "notability", preferring to let my work speak for itself, but when someone creates the article as a stub, and many people discover it and ask for content, then they tell me it has been deleted, I feel a need to set the historical record straight. It is not about "Jon Roland" but his work and the work of others in the Constitution Society. Unfortunately, the tendency of too many people to argue from authority rather than considering work on its own merits is difficult to escape. Dismissing the worker disrespects the work, in this environment. I also object to the summary deletion of the article on the Constitution Society, which it appears is somehow related to this action by the administators. The Constitution Society is a real organization with real members and real activities, the evidence of which is online for anyone to examine. More people read its materials than read all the textbooks in all the lawschools, and its influence is real. That has to count for something unless there is an ideological agenda at work here. Jon Roland 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
One more point: If it is your intent to allow deficiencies to be corrected (even if you don't take the time to notify the submitter of such deficiencies to give him a chance to do so), then how is he supposed to correct deficiencies if there is no article he can edit or his submissions are blocked by a protected status? I can understand if the hassles of administering a site like Wikipedia make you somewhat impatient and disposes you to make summary decisions, but there comes a point beyond which impatience becomes abusive. I have been intervening in several cases against judges who, perhaps in a mood of impatience, have been riding roughshod over due process protections and the rules of judicial procedure and conduct. Become too arbitrary and the public is going to start rejecting Wikipedia the way they are beginning to reject the justice system. Jon Roland 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
One of you has already aknowledged I have one, the book by Jonathan Karl, who devotes a chapter to me, and who, besides being a correspondent for ABC News, has credentials as a historian in his own right. He is notable enough to have an article of his own, although I don't know him well enough to write it. He has interviewed me by phone and on television, but I didn't have much time to ask about him.Jon Roland 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not just contributors who may have a justiable interest in what is published on the site. Consider the revelation of sensitive information about someone else than the contributor. Information needed to steal his identity, for example. Or revelation of the location of a protected witness, or of a whistleblower for whom it is the government that is the threat. The possibilities for "when did he stop beating his wife" aspersions are endless. In the words of Cardinal Richelieu, "Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
Jon, the solution here is pretty simple. Cite third-party reliable sources (scholarly legal journals, major media outlets) that have covered you and your work and no one here will contest their validity or notability. If you can do that, which ought to be a fairly simple task, it will be quite easy to get the articles in question restored. If you cannot cite such third-party sources, you have no argument, period.--chris.lawson 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 15 January 2007
| Xavier Rhone – Deletion endorsed – 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
He is getting more popular, and people need to know of him67.183.248.48 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| A Doemain of Our Own – Listed at AfD – 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Another speedy deleted webcomic by this admin Naconkantari (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#A7. The article had undergone an AfD in 2005 and should have been nominated if the admin felt that it does not belong. The comic is published by Plan 9 Publishing and is a hosted on Keenspot. I move to overturn the deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Subsidairy Alliance – Redirect set to new target subsidiary alliance – 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This redirect pointed at Subsidiary Alliance and was deleted at WP:RFD. See the RfD log from 6 January 2007 for the discussion. Now, looking at the history of the Subsidiary Alliance article, someone obviously made the typo confirming that it is a plausible typo—in fact, someone also had made the typo Subsidairy allaince which still exists. So that refutes the delete suggestions of the nominator and two of the five editors in favour of deletion who based their opinion on the fact that it's an unlikely typo. The other three who moved to delete this article relied on the comment "Seeing as how the main article isn't goin got be hanging around, no need for the redirect." This is not only poor practise, but the target will likely be merged into subsidiary alliance which is a more developed article and is not nominated for deletion. In my eyes the delete arguements are not sufficient and I suggest recreation of this redirect with subsidiary alliance as its target. BigNate37(T) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 14 January 2007
| David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy – Speedily closed; unambiguous – 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Being on the main page is not a reason to speedy keep an AfD; it's not relevant. Closure should be overturned and either the AfD should be restarted or resumed. Rory096 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The Carrion Fields (MUD) – Deletion endorsed – 21:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus on the deletion of this article only applies to a former article under the name of "Carrion Fields". "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article was re-written specifically to address the problems that led to the deletion of the "Carrion Fields" article in 2005. Yet "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" was deleted for the same reasons as the "Carrion Fields" article was. The consensus reached in 2005 only applies to the "Carrion Fields" article, not to the "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article. A request for prompt reinstatement is subsequently being made. 84.192.125.204 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Ill Mitch – Speedy deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
NOTARIETY IN A NATIONAL MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED Jellonuts 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Reinstate this page. He was reviewed in April, 2003 STUFF Magazine on Page 38. This establishes enough notariety.
I have updated the page and supplied all of the references and image tags. I am requesting one more time, after all this work, that the block be lifted so that I can replace the page with the new one. Then, if you don't like it you can nominate it for AfD and go through the discussion process rather than tyrannically deleting it without a discussion. I have satisfied the notability requirements, even if newspapers and national magazines are not good enough for YOU, they are good enough for wikipedia requirements and notability is specifically supposed to NOT be a subjective criteria. Please lift the block.Jellonuts 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am going to request one last time, since the 5 days are up, that this be unprotected so that I may restore the page and then it can go through the process of AfD if you so wish.Jellonuts 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Chris Sullo – No consensus closure overturned, relisted at AfD – 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The other related articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seifert, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Security Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufeeq Hussain in this series have been closed as delete or are clearly going towards a delete. But this one was closed as "no consensus". I believe that closing admin User:Cbrown1023 failed to notice that none of the two users who voted keep had a valid argument. One of them cited "Desperate wish" as the reason to keep the article, the another one cited what he called "notable references" -- but I clearly pointed out that none of these references are notable. Out of four links provided, one says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, second mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, third mentions he is author of a web scanner tool, fourth one has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Nikto is listed as #1 in the more defined class of web scanners. In 2003, Nikto was awarded #16.
Netgear routers, MySQL Eventum, Cyclades Alterpath ([1, 2, 3), and more.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Mindstar Productions – Articles can be userfied on request – 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
references available Requesting undeletion of the following articles The references you gave are fine, and there are others. You may be able to get your article undeleted, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review. For now, I created a temporary page under your userspace: *****. This shows the proper way of referencing. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) IGuy 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| ECourier – Deletion endorsed – 21:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
INAPPROPRIATELY_DELETED Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I believe the administrator steel359 acted innapropriately in using a speedy delete on this article on the basis of "blatant advertising". This page provides factual information on our company, and although the company is the subject of the article I do not believe it could by any stretch be categorised as "blatant advertising" (and would challenge anyone who believes this to indicate the specific reasons with reference to the text of the article--available here Internet Archive Link. I was shocked to see that the article was summarily deleted some months ago without our knowledge. The article had been reviewed by other admins (I even requested page protection at one point), which begs the question why if there was consensus the article was innapropriate this was not raised earlier. The admin in question could and should--if he actually believed the article was "blatant advertising" have posted on the discussion page and informed us. This would have led to the discussion being held in the open, for all to see. It took me quite a while to see why the page had been deleted--it was just gone. This behaviour betrays the key principles of openess and the freedom of information exchange on which Wikipedia was founded and which continues to make it special. I have posted on steel359's talk page to this effect, also requesting an apology for his conduct. I believe it would be wise to review the criteria for speedy deletion and that steel359's judgement and conduct ought to be carefully reviewed in light of the above. Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Fact. See references at Times Article, Silicon.com, etc. A.I.B.A. is a promising example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks. See reference at Michael Trick's Operational Research Blog, from an Academic at CMU, see the post from 23 June. eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocaTion to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed." Included in Times article but refers to factual descriptions of the product. Yes it is a contested speedy--if it should not be here where should it go? The article says to leave a message on your talk page which was done and to appeal here if refused, which is how I take your response. Do you really think "I am not going to entertain this any further" is appropriate when the topic of discussion is summarily deleting information without discussion?
I have read the Conflict of Interest guidelines thoroughly and I think we all need to step back and remember a few points here. First, I don't believe I did write the original article, I just edited it (please could an admin check this and post). Second, the COI guidelines make very clear that although editing an article in which you have an interest should be avoided, it is not forbidden and if your interest is declared and the SUBSTANCE of your edits are fair, there is no problem. "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." Note my emphasis on the last sentence, these are from the guidelines themselves. What I don't think is right about this discussion is that people are inferring something about the content of an article (that it's not just advertisement, but blatant advertisement) SIMPLY from my declared status as an editor with some COI. That is not right and contrary to the COI policy. The two users who posted above have not indicated any specific content from the article which would characertise it as "blatant advertisement". If it is so blatant, could someone please indicate this with reference to the CONTENT of the article? I also note that the criteria for speedy deletion is not just advertisement (ANY article written on a company by anyone will by its very nature contain what can be seen as advertisements assuming it describes its products and services) but that it be "blatant". It's quite frustrating that no one will engage me in a substantive discussion here. Anyway, following on from GRBerry's comments, I suggest that the article be restored so references can be added carefully to each assertion. This is good practice anyway particularly in situations where COI is a declared issue. Comments on this can be recorded on the discussion page of the article and editors can modify as needed. Surely this is a better option than removing all discussion on this subject? I will post a version of this article Here Jaybregman 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
However, I think we can modify the sentence to be more neutral: eCourier has taken a different approach to logistics than previous companies such as FedEx (cite to first sentence of this quote and include quote in reference), rather than attempting to "simplify operations to make exceptions rare", the Peer to Peer model practiced by eCourier "de facto make[s] every transaction an exception...Each courier pickup is a dynamic, real-time, semi-optimized event" (add other cite and link to full article).
Ok, so the second part of the sentence "to revolutionise the express delivery market". I see your point as to how this could be interpreted as non-neutral. I think it is more powerful to change it to
I personally think the citations to this are sufficient. But again, it's more powerful to use the text of the citations in the decription, it has the added benefit of making the article more encyclopedic and eliminating the appearance of pushing unverified information. So, we can do this: eCourier developed and uses in its operations an intelligent despatch and fleet management system it calls A.I.B.A. The system "uses a detailed geographical model of its London operations, including predicted and actual traffic patterns, weather, package demand, real-time courier availability, and other data" (Release 1.0 article, p11) to "[match] jobs and couriers in real time, using its knowledge of where they are" (ibid). How does it work? "AIBA knows where all th eCouriers are, and it knows what they are carrying and how fast they are moving. This information is combined with the latest traffic and weather reports. The computer also compares the journey with previous patterns, allowing it to calculate the impact of a traffic jam, a thunderstorm, or just a busy Friday afternoon. It then uses this information to predict a travel time for the collection and delivery and allocates each new delviery to the most appropriate courier. The whole process takes milliseconds."(See Despatch Manager article [115]. Note I also could have used Release 1.0 for a more technical discussion of the inner-workings, but I wanted to keep it simple and vary the sources used).
A.I.B.A is a "great example of how an entreprenurial company can use Operations Research to gain tremendous competitive advantage". And add cite to Michael Trick's OR Blog (author is CMU academic. I also cited this above (have listed google cache here because main site is having issues, see 23 June post) [116]
eCourier's web site allows customers to "track their courier on a map in real-time, with [time] estimates for pickup and delivery." After the delivery is completed, "the client then receives an instant e-mail proof of delivery complete with digital signature of the signer." (cite to Despatch Manager article available here[118]) The company has set up a demo of its online tracking system here track deliveriesJaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
eCourier has grown substantially since it started operations in September 2004 with only four couriers: "After just 19 months of operations, eCourier is handling 15,000 deliveries per month, for some of London's largest investment banks, law firms, and retailers" FT ([119] with "85% of the company's bookings [made] over the internet". (The Economist, see cite above). Do you agree with this change?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Livingston Airline Destinations – Superceded by ongoing mass AfD – 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Vote was 10 of 16 to delete, should have been closed as no consensus especially knowing that this article from an obscure airline was going to be used to justify deleteing articles for major airlines. Votes for deletion did not consider the reasons why the articles exist. They were first created when this information became large relative to the size of the airline article. By splitting this data out, the parent article size becomes more manageable. The destinations are encyclopedic since they define the very nature of many airlines. The are easy to verify from any travel website, airport websites, government required notifications, government approvals and many other sources, so the votes citing WP:V should have been considered with less weight. It this vote is upheld, it may set a very interesting precedent. It would in effect support deletion of any type of destination list. That could lead to deletions in other areas. Vegaswikian 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 13 January 2007
| ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam – Protection endorsed, redirect set as proposed – 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This motion is to unsalt only. As one of the key fictional elements of the television series Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, there is a high probability that this element can stand in it's own article so long as it is within WP:FICTIONs guidelines for article growth. Keeping this page salted would be much like salting Death Star or Starship Enterprise because previous versions of these articles did not meet Wikipedia guidelines. It the meantime, it can redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units with the other casualties of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Briefsism – Speedy closed as pants and trolling socks Keep deleted – 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This has been deleted several times as a hoax, and now locked from being re-created. It's real, there are sources verifying its existence, and it's notable (why would David Beckham be a well-known follower of it??). Also, it should go through AFD again. I have reliable sources that prove its notability and existence. Apoplexic Manager 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Apoplexic Manager (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. |
| Hybird_Systems – Deletion endorsed – 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
-I was not trying to use wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle in any way. I was just trying to explain my company to anyone that uses Wikipedia and happens to search for my company. I am sorry if this doesn't work with you, but I was just trying to be polite. If you won't let me edit the article, please at least make it unblocked so that any future article writers can contribute to the article. I will not add anymore contributions to Wikipedia if that helps and I will also not re-open the article. I am the owner of the company and I am trying to tell everyone about it. Please let me explain my company's information.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Carissa and Josephine O'Meara – Deletion endorsed – 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
AFD was closed less than 24 hours before it was started, which is unfair as I believe there are people who would have voted to keep it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Balloon fetishism – Deletion endorsed – 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Undelete Balloon Fetishism. The lack of 'scholarly research' on a under researched subject should not be a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. The internet is full of commercial, public, and personal websites devoted to the topic of Balloon Fetishism. Here is several informative websites: http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/balloon.html http://www.answers.com/topic/balloon-fetishism Here are numerous Balloon Fetish online communities (some straight and some gay): http://balloonbuddies.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoysBalloonsandCondoms3/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddymenlooners/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalloonPlaytime/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balloonbangingboys/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenBustingBIGBalloons/?yguid=201617095 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/menwithballoons/?yguid=201617095 Sonicyouth1 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Sven Co-op – Deletion endorsed, no new information – 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This delete simply doesn't make sense Sven Co-op is one of the more popular mods for HL1, no more or less notable than any other. The AFD was a joke, "WP:SOFTWARE" is nothing more than a Proposed Guideline and the admin deleted without any kind of consensus. It was listed for a deletion review before, [[122]] where yet More good reasons for its survival were provided. Thedreamdied 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hadouken! – Deletion endorsed – 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I was amazed at the fact this page was removed, they are possibly the most prominent band currently on the grindie scene and the NME AND Guardian (newspaper) love them. Mike Skinner from the Streets played them on Radio 1! Theyve worked with Bloc Party, Plan B and Klaxons! Hardly worthy of deletion--Acertainromance 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Also found out that they supported Metric (band) and as a result found a number of reviews on them including ones on BBC music.--Acertainromance 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Job for a Cowboy – Deletion endorsed, article currently in userspace – 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
now almost mainstream Death band This article has been deleted one year ago, because the band did not meet at the time the notability requirements of WP:BAND. It is not the case anymore now, and here are the reasons why I think it should be undeleted :
] If they get put back on, there needs to be a "Criticism" section, as they are the butt of many a scenester's jokes, and wecamewithbrokenteeth has a song called "Job for a Brokeback"
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006 – Cut-and-paste move fixed, no other issues – 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was moved improperly. Instead of waiting for a sysop to delete to redirect, someone cut and pasted the page contents to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/November 2006, destroying the page history -- Selmo (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The Demented Cartoon Movie – Deletion endorsed – 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page had nothign wrong with it The Demented Cartoon Movie (2005, Brian Kendall) is a highly popular flash movie. The Wikipedia Article was full of information on the 30 minute flash based movie, incuding info from Brian Kendall himself. I was really sad to learn that it was taken down (possibly deleted), and that is why I am here. If an Admin can't undelete it completeley, I can understand tha,t but can one of you guys please give me a link to it? THANKS! Avatarfan6666 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wild beasts – Article moved into mainspace and listed at AfD – 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The page was deleted at AfD in November 2006, I accept that at the time, the band did not meet WP:MUSIC, but since then there have been several things which I feel now make the band notable. When their single was released, they were placed at number 17 in the independant music charts. They were also single of the week on BBC 6music and placed in circulation. The band have now signed with Domino Records which is a major record label (although I understand that this particular point may not matter for ascertaining notability) RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 12 January 2007
| Jizzle me this – Deletion endorsed – 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Swift and unfair deletion of well-written article Wheresmydanish 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg – Withdrawn after clarification – 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Useful, non-policy-violating fair use image. I can't find any record of its deletion--it seems just to have disappeared. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Robert K S 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wikipedia:Esperanza – MfD closure endorsed – 05:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Closing comments The consensus result of this discussion is that Mailer diablo's closure was proper and should be implemented. Most of the discussion seems to be about differing interpretations what the closure entailed, and how it was supposed to be implemented. The simplest way to resolve this, and it seems that this has finally happened, is always to ask the closing admin for clarification. So I hope the implementation proceeds civilly and collegially from now on, in the spirit that Esperanza tried to promote. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
Wikipedia:Esperanza was recently nominated for deletion on WP:MFD/EA. The results, which I agree was a good handling of consensus, stated that "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder". The Messedrocker Solution said that "all the Esperanza pages (except Wikipedia:Esperanza itself) are blanked and made into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is replaced with a notice on how it's closed down. This way, the history is still around, but it is effectively deleted". However, a majority of Esperanza's subpages were deleted by a few admins against consensus established on MfD. They removed the histories of the Esperanza subpages and replaced them with redirects. IMHO, this is a serious offense against what the Wikipedia community wanted to have done. Therefore, I request that all pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page. I realize that no DRV is needed to request page undeletion. However, this situation is currently under debate, and I think that we need a wider opinion here. Many requests for undeletion on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza have been met with opposition by those who were against the MfD results. Therefore, I will be using WP:IAR in order to ignore the rules on Wikipedia:Deletion review#History only undeletion and request the undeletion here. Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
While I generally agree that one does not need every page of Esperanza to know it's history, the deleted pages cited by Ed are very odd. Why were those pages deleted? If they are going to be protected redirects then what harm could the histories have? This DRV isn't wasting out time, the deletion of those pages are wasting our time. Correct a simple mistake, please. Why is this an issue? -- Ned Scott 07:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Overturn discussions per Ed. -- Selmo (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Go edit the encyclopedia - I can't believe this is still going on. You want to restore the histories? Fine. Restore the histories. And after that, we need to have a firm consensus that the very next person who agitates ANYTHING to do with Esperanza should be banned indefinitely for WP:POINT. I don't have time for this magnitude of willful ignorance,and yet I find it ironic and apt that Esperanza continues to produce incivility , bad faith, divisiveness, and distract from editing the encyclopedia. Let it die. Bring the histories back so that there is nothing left to agitate over, and ban/block/ignore those who continue their histronics. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Can the admin closing this DRV please reference this page that I created halfway through the debate, and which helped to focus discussion. When complete, that page would seem to be a good way to quietly tie up loose ends, hopefully with a minimum of drama. Carcharoth 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've discussed the issue with the other main admins who helped administer the close by Mailer Diablo, and Mailer Diablo himself, and we are all happy to review the close and undertake to tie up any loose ends as we can per the closing comments of the deletion debate. I believe that commitment to rectify any errors caused by the workload and the number of admins involved should satisfy the demands of the deletion review process at this point. Hiding Talk 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of fictional police detectives – Deletion endorsed – 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closing admin's comments were "The result was delete. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category." Actual votes cast were 6 keeps (one of them "strong"), 5 deletes, 1 keep which was withdrawn so maybe should be counted as a delete, one abstain (from procedural nominator) and two speedy closes which I think need to be disregarded (one of them from a user who also voted keep). On the face of it, therefore, an obvious no-consensus default-keep, leaving us only to deal with the closing admin's discount of the keep votes and his or her own opinion that the list is duplicated by the category. It's hard to rebut the "not rooted in policy" assertion, since I cannot see what the closing admin based it on, nor what policy he or she thinks the delete votes were based on. I expect Proto will come here and comment, and I will either agree, or rebut, when I see that explanation. For my own part, I would assert that my vote ("nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it") is precisely AS rooted-in-policy, no more no less, than the nomination which asserted that the article should be deleted because it was indescriminate and unmaintainable. That leaves the suggestion that the article was duplicated by the category. The relevant guideline on this, here says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes... These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." When looking for "official guidance" (so to speak) on whether a list and a category can be redundant with one another, therefore, the wikipedia guideline says that they are not. I see a keep voter saying "The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition". I do not know why that was considered "unconvincing", and I cannot now look at the page to check, since it has been deleted and I am not an admin. However if David Edgar is right on that point then Proto is wrong. I would argue (and our guideline seems to support the view) that a list is not redundant with a category even if it contains exactly the same information, since it has scope to expand in a way the category does not. AndyJones 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Digital Photography Review – Recreated as suggested, no ultimatum on whether to take the new article to AFD; DRV discussion moot in any case – 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It is my impression that dpreview.com is _the_ online ressource for cameras. The site was recommended to me, and when I got down to the camera store I found that they used it too. Seems to be an established site, with comprehensive coverage of current high-end camera models, ahve very active forums. Searching for "dpreview" gives me over 4 million hits. Was speedy deleted after being tagged with {{db-web}}. Thue | talk 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Heritage Guitars – Withdrawn by appellant, who is going to apply the "Newyorkbrad solution" – 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This AfD debate was closed by a non-administrator as a "keep". Per WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions, any closes by non-admins must be "unambiguous "keep" decisions". This, in my opinion, wasn't one of those. Note: the current "disputed" tag is not about this sentence of that section, but rather an addition to it regarding closing as "delete" which is unrelated to this DRV. The fact that the section is disputed is non-consequential to this because it is unrelated to the part I'm talking about. Firstly, remember AfD is not a vote. Donald Albury's input was still under dispute as to whether it brought up a good reason to delete, and the status of that argument is certainly ambiguous. Although some of the keep opinions were explained, a lot weren't, and I would have felt that, at the third-last version[128], a no-concensus close is right on the money. However, this diff[129], the last before it is closed, is the best argument of the lot, in my opinion. With this, any hint of unambiguity is vanquished and this becomes an AfD which needs to be interpreted on the guidelines of WP:CORP and WP:NOTE by an administrator. I feel that, given Nick's argument, this should either be relisted to gain further input so concensus can be reached, or else the AfD reopened, allowed to run a couple more days to discuss Nick's extremely valid input, and then closed on its merits again. Note that I am a huge advocate of non-admins closing discussions, and I acknowledge that people do make mistakes; maybe I made one by nominating this for DRV, who knows? I hold nothing against the closer, however I felt that he/she should probably have erred on the side of caution given the circumstances, especially the undiscussed last deletion comment by Nick, and left it for an admin to apply the guidelines to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Nothing to Lose (Heroes) – Deletion endorsed – 01:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. |
| Oi! – Article that was deleted accidentally as a result of vandalism restored by original deleter – 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It was deleted for absolutly no legitimate reason, without any discussion. Oi! is a genuine music genre, and not a "neologism" as described by the editor who incorrectly deleted the article. There are many, many Wikipedia articles that link to the Oi! article. It should be restored immediately. Also, judging by the comments on User:Jimfbleak's talk page, perhaps his powers of deletion should be revoked, at least temporarily until he gets a better handle on Wikipedia policies. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The Game (game) – Endorse deletion, again. You do not get to repeat DRV every week until you get the answer you like. – 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
"The Game" is the name of a legitimate game that does not exist on any physical medium. That it does not exist physically is one unique aspect of The Game, another being that no one can ever win The Game, though that point is debated by some. The way The Game works is as follows: when you think of The Game, you lose The Game. The Game restarts after one who loses The Game "forgets" about The Game, i.e. when it leaves the person's present state of thought. When one loses The Game (meaning he thought about the game), he anounces it to those around him which technically makes them lose The Game, however the loss does not count for them in when this happens. The Game deserves a page on Wikipedia for the same reasons that Monopoly or The Game of Life deserves a page on Wikipedia. Just because it is not well known, is not tangible, and is simple does not mean that it is illegitimate. Please consider this appeal. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Tumbler Ridge coa.png – Deletion endorsed pending sourcing information – 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted here, requested undeletion here, used here: Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. It was tagged with {{coatofarms}} but I didn't upload or watch it so I did not get the notice that its (what-they-thought-was-a) "copyright tag" was removed. I request that it be restored, tagged with {{symbol}}, and kindly moved to a better name, so that it can be used that article again. Also, same with Image:FSJ Flag.jpg deleted here, used here. Thanks. maclean 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The Baker's Dozen – Deletion endorsed – 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Baker's Dozen is a accapella singing group from Yale which was Deleted on December 26, 2006 due to lack on notability. However a week later, the group has gained a great deal more notablity in the United States (and possibly worldwide) due to an assault on the entire group which is allegedly being mishandled by the San Francisco Police Department, below are a few sources
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:Catholic-link – No consensus closure overturned, relisted at TfD – 06:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Catholic-link is a talk page template which recommends the use of the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Such a template is unprecedented for Wikipedia. This will open the way for similar banners from other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others in the public domain or otherwise, resulting in conflicts over which sources should be given special lobbying treatment. Already there is considerable conflict over this (the TfD was "no consensus"), but the issue is bigger than that - do we want users lobbying with banner templates for a particular source to be used? Recommend a change from no consensus to Delete. Thank you. Stbalbach 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 11 January 2007
| Death By Gluten – Deletion endorsed – 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
real, up and coming band, real info, real fans,real education, no one is being deceived or misleadBhatmaster 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Operation Show Me How – Article relisted at AfD based on new evidence – 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Operation Show Me How appeared on DYK on December 15, 2006 and was deleted on January 4, 2007 as not being notable. The article now is one of the few red linked DYK articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. As I set out in more detail on the Operation Show Me How AfD talk page, the international Show Me How operation (i) was addressed in a Czech government confirmed report of the French non-governmental Observatoire geopolitique des drogues (OGD) organisation released on April 20, 2000, (ii) was mentioned in an April 20, 2000 news article by the United State government's World News Connection, and (iii) was detailed in an article in the June 15, 2000 Issue of CIO Magazine. Items (i) and (ii) are significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. Further, since enough source material appears to exist to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic appears to be notable. I am requesting that the original deletion decision be overturned. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. -- Jreferee 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Pacha – Speedy deletion overturned with consent of deleting admin, article listed at AfD – 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was speedied on spurious grounds. Administrator who deleted article unresponsive to request from me to put article to an ordinary AFD meco 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Tales of the Questor – Deletion endorsed – 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Disagree with the reason for deletion (non-notabilty) and the manner of deletion (speedy). This webcomic has been running for 5 years, several hundred strips and 2 print collections. The whole thorny issue of Wikipedia:Notability is one that may be argued over for years but as I've mentioned with regard to By The Saints I feel that editors are overzealous in deleting on the grounds of 'non-notabilty' especially when it comes to webcomics. Tales Of The Questor is the best webcomic I have ever seen, so why do lousy comics like "Darken" get an article? This comic is not un-notable, so why? Amitabho Chattopadhyay 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) At least By the Saints had an AfD review, but the Tales of the Questor article, after at least two years online, was speedily deleted by User:Naconkantari on 3 January. I feel that speedy deletion in cases such as this goes completely against the grain of Wikipedia's democratic ideals. If an article is considered for deletion those involved in editing the article should have some say in the matter. Otherwise it looks as if any Admin can come along, look at an article and say "I don't like that, let's just dump it". Lee M 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Jamify – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Woah, woah, woah. Nominated by NeoChaosX and then, less then a minute later,
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Namir Deiter – Deletion endorsed among established editors – 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Namir Deiter was speedily deleted for non-notability last week. I contend that it this was unwarranted. Comic was published in book form by Studio Ironcat, was nominated for an Ursa Major award, and has been around over seven years. I don't feel that it is patently non-notable and deserves a proper AfD vote, if not restoration. Terra Misu 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| The Suburban Jungle – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Suburban Jungle was also speedily deleted for non-notability. Contending notability in the form of publication in book format by Plan 9 Publishing, Ursa Major nomination, Shortbread Award, and article itself was listed in WP:WCXD's "Articles that kick ass" category. I don't feel that it is patently non-notable and deserves a proper AfD vote, if not restoration. Terra Misu 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Bobbins – Deletion endorsed – 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable for being the prequel to Scary Go Round. Either a vote or merging is requested. Terra Misu 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Artificial snow.jpg – Deletion endorsed – 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image had fair use rationale, and was deleted as replaceable. I don't think its replaceable because I uploaded the image specifically to show readers the difference between (magnified) natural snow crystals and man-made snow particles - which requires a magnified view of the man-made snow. Obviously if a free version is found or made, it can replace the fair use image. Until then, I think the image is quite useful, useful enough to keep it anyway. Fresheneesz 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My fault about the fair use rationale (or lackthereof), I had thought I provided rationale, but since I can't see this history.. well I couldn't remember. I still think that fair use rationale can be made up, and think its a good case of fair use. However, I'll contact the site and see if they can release the one picture under a free license. Fresheneesz 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 10 January 2007
| Orca (supercar) – Edit history restored behind newly created article – 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was AFD closed as delete against consensus that it was notable and a real car project (it has appeared at multiple trade shows). Reason given was that article is unsourced, which was largely true, but that's a repairable defect for which AFD policy recommends tagging and repairing, not deleting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orca (supercar) (also, google search on "Orca C113" finds over 12,000 car enthusiast references...) Georgewilliamherbert 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Walking Cradles – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It's not an advertisement I see no difference in terms of written information between this page and the other shoe company pages I've seen on Wikipedia - which I researched and looked into before posting this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_companies Do you simply not allow information about small companies? Is that the issue? If so, please realize that the shoe industry is a very small world. The reason I'm putting this up on Wikipedia specifically is because of the number of designers-in-training that are ending up on our site, both from the US and internationally. It's far easier for them to be able to go down a list of shoe manufacturers and see if the company makes the kind of products they want to design than it is to go to each individual website, or such was my thinking. As you can see reading the article, the information presented specifically tells young designers what they need to know about this line. Isn't that part of the purpose of Wikipedia? If the size of the company is the issue, then I strongly feel you need to rethink that policy, particularly when you're talking about this sort of industry. My next entry was going to be on Ars Sutoria, but if Wikipedia is just going to delete it, then I won't waste my time.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Quikbook – Speedy deletion of copyvio material endorsed – 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article Quikbook was not made intentionally as spam. It's was legitimate information about a privately held Hotel booking company specializing in boutique hotels that's been in business for around 20 years. Some of the questionable marketing content could have been edited instead, but overall, listing the company is warranted. Independent articles mentioning the company have appeared in various publications over the years (ie. Washington Post, NY Times, Money Magazine, CNN.com). Its entry should be no less legitimate than some of its more generic competitors in the industry (travelocity, orbitz). 20:30 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Kings of Chaos – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I know that in the past the Kingsofchaos wikipedia article was littered with petty in game politics and things that could not be proven. However, the article at the time of deletion was in the process of a complete cleanup, including citation of notable sources. One of said sources was a major periodical, The Washington Post. Another of said sources was a video played on a local news channel. For these reasons I ask that the article be reinstated and in some way locked to prevent vandalism by petty KoC players that feel they should be a part of the article. Furthermore, much of the information that I and others added to the game history can be found in its changelog on its front page http://www.kingsofchaos.com/. Snoop0x7b 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of articles related to quackery – Renamed to ... related to scientific skepticism and listed at MfD – 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as a 'move to project space'. Arithmetically, that's a reasonable close. But it is logically quite unacceptable. The existence of this crap anywhere on Wikipedia offends:
The item has no possible use in project space, please overturn and delete --Docg 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. As a Wikiproject, working on either referencing or removing the claims of debunkers, or indeed of quacks, this has merit. The lead states that it is for things that are subject of assertions from debunkers but does not imply that they are right. In project space, this is not actually a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Project space is not a refuge for POV attacks that are unacceptable in the main Wikipedia. Allowing this list to stay creates a precedent which gives attack groups a back-door into Wikipedia. How about: Articles related to Communism (Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Stalin, Pol Pot, mass murder, etc.) or Articles related to Fascism (Hitler, genocide, George Bush, Republican Party, Fox News Channel, etc.) ? MaxPont 10:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Docg*** 1***) The list is against the neutrality of the encyclopedia as labeling people or subject matter as quack or quackery.
In the name of science, this list will follow in the foot steps of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. 2***) This list is against the seriousness of this project.
*What is scientific skepticism?* Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic aims to decide claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates her or his enquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within her or his field of science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favour before they could be accepted as having validity. 3***) This list is against the spirit of WP:BLP.
Simple problems have simple answers. The process of developing and improving this new list is underway. The comments made by many Wikipedians has and will conitune to strengthen the article. In the last 24 hours the list has gone thru some changes. The POV title can be changed with just one click. The topic is scientific, serious, and important. In the spirit and harmony of Wikipedia I merely ask this list remain and continue to sprout, expand, and strengthen its roots & beginnings on Wiki. As the information is updated the list will become more focused, directed, and centered for all to read, get informed, and educated. As I journey onward in the project, I will continue the collaboration process. Good will to all and god bless. Cheers from a true believer, advocate, and promoter of Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Alert - these are the comments User:QuackGuru deleted above (his idea of collaboration.) with my comments reinserted.
Comment - Sorry for having to do this. --Dematt 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
here and again here. I do not give permission to other editors to take my information and mix it with her/his comments. This caused confusion to who wrote what information. Please stop, respectively. I did not delete anyone else's comments. I removed my own comments that were mixed up the another editor's comments. These are my comments. I reinsertated my comments without the other editor's comments mixed in with my comments and left all the other comments alone and separate. I hope other editors will consider to remain civil. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| K12 Inc. – Deletion endorsed – 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This request is on behalf of User:Plin, who created the article. It has been deleted several times, most recently by myself, because it sounded like spam. I also discovered that it contained copyright violations from http://www.k12.com. However the creator insists that the article is his/her own work, and I offered to set up this DRV as a courtesy. I myself believe the article should stay deleted, not only because of the copyright violations, but because it sounds like spam. See discussions between myself and the user [144], [145]. Fang Aili talk 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Old School 2 – Page protection removed – 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Old School Dos Has Proof Of Existing Old School Dos has proof of existing. Un-protecting the page so it can be re-directed to Old School Dos would be helpful for anyone looking for information on Old School 2.--WhereAmI 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Harry Potter in translation series – Deletion endorsed – 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
AfD debate was no consensus. User Proto recorded the result as delete SmokeyJoe 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that the history, discussion and discussion history are important? SmokeyJoe 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
The transwikification of the content without the history, and hence without the authorship, given that the authorship information is no longer available at wikipedia, is a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License. Am I wrong? SmokeyJoe 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us know if you find any. John Reaves 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Omar barnett – Speedily closed; no reason provided – 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_REASON Galdemway 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 9 January 2007
| Intuitor – Speedy deletion overturned, now at AfD – 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Intuitor was speedy-deleted last month by JzG with the summary "WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). Fewer than 600 ghits, and the top ones are for a completely different site!" I can't view the deleted article, but an archived version does assert that Intuitor's "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" feature "has been cited on popular websites such as Fark and Slashdot, on radio programs throughout the U.S. and Canada, and in major print media." I get 35,000 Google hits for "intuitor", and 8 of the top 10 relate to the site. It doesn't seem to meet A7, so I contacted JzG, who referred me here. Tim Smith 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| 123 Pleasant Street – Re-listed at AfD by original closer – 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have tried to contact the closing admin before bringing this to DR, however the closing admin has not responded to my thoughts on their talk page, hence I proceeded with the process. I believe that the closing admin had not followed the Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states: Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. While I was the only person who had made the decision about deleting the article, I do believe I was correct in my thoughts. The only sources provided are links to the club's webpage, a homestead.com page which has been disabled, a personal angelfire.com webpage listing the owner as a missing person (which is a direct copy of one of the external links from doenetwork.us) and finally a blog from a band that played there years ago. When I pressed for Multiple, Independent, Reputable, Reliable, Third-Party, Non-Trivial Published sources, the only link was to a local news article that spoke only of the missing club owner but said nothing about the club at all. There were no sources provided about the club. WP:LOCAL was brought as the reason to keep but no one could provide any sources that satisfied WP:V. As for WP:LOCAL it states: If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all. As it is, There are are not enough Reliable and Verifiable information sources to validate an article. We can't ignore the fact that there are no news stories on the club itself. What I am saying again is, WP:V can not be ignored. Where are the articles primarily on the club? --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Bill Britt – Rewritten article now in mainspace – 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Bill Britt is a notable person. Bill Britt is one of the top most distributors in Amway/Quixtar. Britt has above 1 million people in his downline.He is currently serving as a Presidents Cabinet Representative on the IBOA International Board. http://www.iboai.com/IBOAI-PresidentsCabinet-BillBritt.asp Britt is mentioned in the Forbes Magazine, December 9, 1991 http://www.amquix.info/forbes_december_9_1991.html Britt was mentioned in nationally televised news documentary on the Dateline NBC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#_note-20 The Triangle Business Journal reports a scam involving him. http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2003/08/11/story1.html The Burlington Times-News reported about Britt's involvement in fradulent investment schemes, and about his impending separation with his wife. A lawsuit involving him is mentioned in an article in "Time Out". http://www.rickross.com/reference/amway/amway9.html A lawsuit involving him is mentioned in an article in "The Legal Intelligencer". http://www.amquix.info/aus/hanrahan.htm#articles Knverma 12:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Generation YES – Speedy deletion overturned, now at AfD – 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. |
| Daniel Jencka – Deletion endorsed – 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The composer is well known among students and associates of American composer Stanley Hollingsworth, and was regionally very well known in Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Canada in the late 70's and throughout the 80's as a member of the Flauto e Basso Baroque Duo. Significant within the world of modern harpsichord music. Morphixnm 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Pentagon_precollapse.jpg | Speedily undeleted by deleting admin – 07:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The picture had a source, and fair use rationale - yet was still speedily deleted without giving me notice. Fresheneesz 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg – Restored by deleting admin – 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Did a search of the last two weeks of IFD, no listing, no notice on talk, nor on image as far as the last week or two. The image just up and disappeared The image was tagged and sourced. PPGMD 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Sadly, No – Speedy close, totally groundless nomination. – 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted via avowed trolling by Gay Niggers of America 71.250.215.101 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Meadowridge School – Deletion endorsed – 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I_Authorize_reproduction_of_Meadowridge_website_content_I_am_web_administrator_www.meadowridge.bc.ca Wakeling2 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 8
[edit] 7 January 2007
| Rance – unrelated protected redirect cleared; stub on Japanese CVG series moved in 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This should be a pretty straight-forward unprotection. Anyways, the previous, deleted article was about some blogger. However, Rance also is the name of a well-known Japanese series of
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Superosity – Deletion endorsed – 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted by Pilotguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) with the following reason: "Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher" This appears to be based on CSD A7, but I find it difficult to justify, considering Superosity is basically the flagship strip on Keenspot. I have no idea if the content of the article prior to deletion was suitable for the encyclopedia, but I strongly disagree that the subject is not notable. Powers T 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Exmortis – Deletion endorsed – 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was unfairly targeted as "non-notable fancruft" by Ezeu who has an axe to grind against flash games and are forms of video games. This is a real video game and it has had an impact. The supporters who voted against deletion included the following users and their comments:
The full version of the article prior to its deletion can be found here: [146] Ladb2000 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 6 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 5 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 4 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 3 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 2 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 1
![[64]](http://www.davstarsecurity.com/img/GEWSK.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](http://images.saleshound.com/smartcircular/retailerpromotionpageimages/circuitcity/large/040815_10n11_ierta.jpg){kind=link}
