Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 24 March 2008
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Added references ans external links Andretalierciom (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Please reconsider it.Thank you
So it will be ok if we have multi-purpose account, how ow do we do it we need to recreate the page and add contributions? Andretalierciom (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Ok, but how does the re-submission work? Thank you Guy Andretalierciom (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Dave, but how is relist done? Thank you again. Andretalierciom (talk) 21:02, 24 March 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 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 page was admittedly written rather badly, but the guy is unquestionably notable. He's signed to a notable record label, Atlantic Records, and has appeared on the albums of three separate, notable artists: Nas, Cassidy, and Jeannie Ortega. Additionally, I found some sources that can be used: [1] [2] [3], as well as the ones that were already listed in the article. GlassCobra 18:21, 24 March 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. | |
An administrator (User:Doc glasgow)randomly deleted several articles he personally felt deserved to be deleted, without proposing AFDs, PRODs or anything similar. This was a fairly balanced article about a fairly notable American legal case that tried to prosecute a man for his online actions (4,260 google hits, specific to him). I see the same administrator has been questioned for his habit of deleting articles in the past, without AFD, PROD or even notifying the page's authors...simply "disappearing" them. He was also listed on the Administrator's Noticeboard for the same actions, and removed criticism of his deletions from his talk page - and I have to echo the same concerns. AfD is the proper route for an article you wish to see deleted (and I'm quite confident that Sami Omar al-Hussayen would've resulted in a strong "Keep" vote at an AfD). The administrator in question deleted eight articles yesterday alone, for anything from "has an unreferenced tag" to "disagreement whether arrested in 2000 or 2001", this is definitely not an acceptable action. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what's going on here. What's going on? I need more facts before I reach any sort of conclusion as to who's right. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:01, 25 March 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. |
Posting on behalf of User:AlexandreJ, who is new and unfamiliar with the DRV process. Article failed AfD and was deleted while author was unavailable to edit or defend the article prior to it's deletion. Article was recreated by author in violation of CSD G4 criteria, but author was unaware that the DRV venue existed. A second AfD is currently in progress, but I have pointed the author here to voice his concerns. My speedy endorsement in the ongoing AfD is for the G4 violation. I am otherwise neutral. DarkAudit (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/ o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/ o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/ o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/ o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/ o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3 o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3 o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm
I am reading these comments concerning deletion to the page: "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" and I find it totally amazing that the Wikipedia people can think that the page is simply "advertisement" to the book. The truth is the book is ***The**** most controversial topic in the whole Hare Krishna Movement. For the past 4 years or so, the Hare Krishna Movement has been doing everything in its power to make this book disappear from the face of the Earth. The Governing Body of the Hare Krishna movement prohibits all its members from reading the book. Yet, no matter how much the Hare Krishna has tried to shut the concepts given in the book, Hare Krisha devotees are still fighting about this every single day. All one needs to do is to go to one of the many websites that are visited by the Hare Krishna devotees such as the Sampraday Sun and one can see daily discussions about the topics talked about in the book. The Hare Krishna movement has everything well controlled inside the movement. Yet it is a bit more difficult to control the internet. There is a man name "Gauranga" who happens to be a Hare Krishna, he has some kind of administrative privileges in Wikipedia. He constantly deletes anything that appears negative on the "Hare Krishna" page and the "ISKCON" page. Those two pages are only propaganda pages for the Hare Krishna Movement. The "Hare Krishna" page in Wikipedia mostly talks about ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness). ISKCON is not the only Hare Krishna group! My point is that since 1977, ISKCON has been fighting as to what is the place of Srila Prabhupada in their movement. ISKCON pays lip service to Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON. But they use him only as a figure head to get people to join. They use Srila Prabhupada's teachings to lure people to join their movement. But once they are inside, they tell the newcomers that Srila Prabhupada is not their link to the disciplic succession. The book: "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, says otherwise. That is why the Governing Body wrote papers trying to defeat the book. A group of supporters of the book have gotten together and form a internet discussion group. There are many other ISKCON devotees who favor the book also, but are too afraid to come out and say it. The concepts of the book has been an ongoing war within ISKCON for the past 31 years. ISKCON does not have any other topic that is more controversial than this. Anyone who is a member of the movement knows this. The Wikipedia people don't know this. They do not understand the daily political struggles of Hare Krishna Movement, to be more specific, ISKCON. But I urge members of the Wikipedia team to investigate the most controversial topic in this movement (ISKCON) and they will find that there is nothing more controversial then the topic of what exactly is the rightful place of Srila Prabhupada in HIS movement. The Hare Krisha leaders will want Wikipedia to think that "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" is just propaganda and it should be removed from Wikipedia. But hundreds and thousands of devotees will say that Srila Prabhupada is the Prominent link to the disciplic succession. If any of the members of Wikipedia read the book, they will see how ISKCON has tried and have been trying to make Srila Prabhupada only a figure head. There has been a tremendous fight all over ISKCON concerning this topic. If you remove this page from Wikipedia, you will be helping the Hare Krishna Movement (ISKCON) censor the opposition to the leadership of ISKCON. You will be doing the dirty work for them. If you remove this page, you in effect are siding with the oppressor who want to censor the devotees. — George3h (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 01:46, 25 March 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 would like a temporary review of the article so that its contents could be moved to another site Community service (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |