Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 26 January 2008
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This image is a legitimate flyer that was distributed by the Million Dads March Network at a rally in Topeka, KS, Washington DC, Albuquerque, and New Jersey. It was used only on the article about the Million Dads March Network, as part of a description about the organization. There is no reason to delete it, because it's relevant to the article and doesn't violate wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. Thomas Lessman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Improper speedy delete. My nomination was not WP:POINT. While it's true I nominate a number of articles for deletion, each has resulted in a valid AfD discussion. This one wasn't even given the chance. The TV show is not current, there is no discussion of the show outside the fandom and the sole source of the article is an IMDb link, which is not considered reliable. I believe the nomination was closed as WP:Point because the person doing so User:Greswick or User:D.M.N. do not like that I nominated an article they worked on for deletion. If someone truly believes Sisters (TV series) should be kept, I'd like to know why. This is clearly a wrongly tagged speedy. With the exception of Air transport.... which I agree may have been a poor nomination on my part, my other nominations are currently undergoing valid discussion. Kumqat1406 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand...Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and originality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work. " None of that was present in the article, the image in the article is up for deletion due to copyright issues (I have no connection with this, saw the bot comment on the page). I stand by this being an improper speedy. Is someone supposed to read every single AfD to know if an article could possibly be deleted? WP:Outcomes didn't appear to cover much on the topic of television, instead leading to Wikipedia:Television episodes, which itself is in dispute. If the article were worthy of inclusion, someone would have maintained the article and sourced it and... Just because it was on a network 12 years ago means it's notable and encylopedic? That seems like WP:Otherstuff in and of itself. I respect the comments put here, but I don't think the AfD was handled properly. Kumqat1406 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The Greg Benson AfD discussion was closed as a no consensus/default keep despite there being a clear consensus to delete. Although two editors actually submitted multiple keep votes, their comments were overwhelmed by seven votes in favor of deletion. Those commenting in favor of deletion included the article's original author, who changed his mind after finding out that the article's subject would rather have it deleted. Further, several delete comments specifically addressed and discounted the sources used in compiling the article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
JERRY talk contribs 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not quite sure why the page to this important movement in contemporary art has been protected. Please make it possible for me to edit it. Thank you. --talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The content of the article has been preserved at User talk:Allstarecho/SS so that editors may continue to work on and source the information further pending this deletion review. Preservation of the article content in my userspace does not end this deletion review as the concerns that brought this deletion review still stand. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Besides no rationale or explanation by the closing admin, it is better to actually do some work on the article to bring it up to standards, than it is to just simply delete the article. I found several reliable sources including Variety, Boston University Daily Free Press, Entertainment Weekly (1), Entertainment Weekly (2), Entertainment Weekly (3), USA Today (1), USA Today (2), CNET News.com - all of which certainly do make it meet WP:WEB and WP:NN, which was the main argument of the few that were of the opinion to delete this article. Granted, the "keep" opinions in the AfD mostly came from single purpose accounts, that still doesn't rule them invalid when they make coherent and justified arguments. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
On June 15, 2007, article was deleted as CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. She is a full professor at Loyola College in Maryland and on the President's Council on Bioethics, either of which on its own seems to satisfy the requirements for notability. While I'm not sure of the state of the article prior to deletion (I just followed a red link), I do think that this should have been an AfD rather than a CSD. I suppose I could just go ahead and recreate the page, but I would prefer not to have to start from scratch. RJC Talk Contribs 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |