Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted following a discussion closed on 11 April 2014. I feel there is a case for reinstating this article per clause 3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review ("significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"). I have raised this with the deleting administrator, The Bushranger, but unfortunately he is on hiatus from Wikipedia. The quoted reason for the deletion was the absence of evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I've collected together some sources that I feel met these criteria. I've set these out below for consideration.
Taken together, I believe these sources (which are by no means exhaustive) represent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Additionally, I think it's important to note that personalities whose careers have been built around new media will inevitably have garnered less coverage in traditional sources than those working on more conventional mediums, so Wikipedia's typical approach to sourcing may verge on being overly prescriptive when applied inflexibly here. On this basis, I would like to request that the page protection be lifted allowing for the recreation of the article to community standards. McPhail (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Whether the image belongs to a photo agency might not be our main concern. The original purpose of the photo is. I believe that it had been private family use before the murder case in 1993 happened. I am sure that the author must have been either a studio or one of family members. Also, the commercial use has been subsequent intent, not original. If that's the case, the photo should not have been deleted in the first place. As for the administrator who deleted the image, that person has been semi-inactive at the moment, so I don't think contacting that person is necessary. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Addressing the three bullet points in F7:
I recommend listing at Wikipedia:Files for deletion so this can be discussed more fully if necessary. |
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I will find sources if undeleted. This Soap Opera was one of the most remembered ones in Puerto Rican TV history. I apologize if this is not the proper page to request it at, however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioMartin (talk • contribs)
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A deletion voting was very quickly ended without appropriate number of users participating. The article is about a well-known problem in philosophy, known perhaps since ancient times, described by Hume and called "dilemma of determinism" by him (you can find about it in "Hume's fork"; actually it was Boethius who first described it in Christian times, but he did not use the term). Later a famous separate lecture by James was PRECISELY about this "dilemma of determinism", i.e. the falling of human freedom in the category of either "necessity" or "chance" (the lecture "Dilemma of determinism" was then included as a chapter in his book). So the term was rather "coined" since that time (James was a major 19-th century thinker). Many later philosophers, including J.M. Fischer, C. McGinn, P. Russell, also accept and use this name, as already established after Hume and James. As it concerns an important question mark about the problem of free will and the term itself already exists in professional use and in books, I think it deserves a separate article. No good reason for deletion except "protection" of children, but the latter worry asserts that the topic is indeed important and, therefore, is a joke in a place with such mission as Wikipedia. Overturn. Piotrniz (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello. I noticed some broken links for Warrior Records which led me to this discussion. I did some research since the article was linked to many other pages, now all red links. In my research I found some interesting coverage here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is only recent coverage, so I am wondering how come the article got deleted? BiH (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I've been told by an arbitrator to ask for a review.[11] This SPI concerns an on-going Arbcom case, and since its deletion, its essence concerns one more on-going Arbcom case.[12][13] The deletion of this SPI was out of process, there was no policy based rationale to delete the SPI since it matched no deletion criteria. I had discussed it with the deleting admin, and he said that he could find similarities between me and suspects, but that had to be posted on SPI instead. In fact, the provided evidence was strong, contained similarities such as similar userpages, comments, notifications, collections, AfD, etc. Since the deletion of the SPI, I have happened to discover 2 more suspects and nearly 2 times more reasonable evidence. In every sense, restoration is needful and the interactions that were made on the SPI would be further helpful in solving this issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was originally deleted for being promotional and for the subject failing notability. I recreated the article without it sounding promotional whatsoever and with PLENTY of sources. Everything in the article was cited with a credible source, yet the article was still deleted. I am requesting the article be reviewed and undeleted based on what I have said and based on the content in the article. FYI: The article is at Cameron Dallas (Vine) and not just Cameron Dallas because the "Cameron Dallas" page is locked so only administrators can edit it. Andise1 (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello. I am forced to turn to you for help, because I am faced with a situation where the article about Andrey Davydov that I created was deleted for unclear reasons, and the Admin, who deleted it (Davewild) does not want to do his job.
I asked him to undelete the page and provided arguments supported by facts in favor of this. There were no deviations from Wikipedia policy found, and I wrote about this to the Admin, who deleted the page (Davewild) and provided documents to confirm. However, he refused to perform his duties, as he has not familiarized himself properly with my statements supported by facts, which can be review here - Request for undeletion of the article Andrey Davydov. The same mistake was made by all those "experts," who nominated and voted to delete the page after they "evaluated" it—that is, they did not familiarize themselves with presented references and documents. The debate can be viewed here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Davydov. There you will find, for example, a point of view that persecution by governmental institutions on Russia (former KGB) is a sign of notability, if there is evidence. Yet Admins Orange Mike and Davewild didn’t bother to view the documents confirming that Andrey Davydov was granted political asylum in the USA (see File:Andrey_Davydov’s_Declaration_In_Support_Of_Asylum_Application.jpg and File:Andrey_Davydov's_Asylum_Approval.jpg). This shows incompetence of all those, who undertake to act as editors of a topic about which they not only do not have any idea, but also do not even bother to check basic information about the subject matter, which they allow themselves to judge. This also shows incompetence and poor performance of Admins, who nominated the article for deletion and deleted it without checking references, and thus came to the wrong decision.
If I'm wrong about something, please provide arguments supported by facts. Otherwise I’m asking you to undelete the article. When considering my request, please pay special attention to that Andrey Davydov, about whom the article was created, along with his colleagues, is still being persecuted by Russian FSB. Being familiar with his political case (see), which among other things describes the principles of work of this organization on the Internet, I know that a huge number of employees of different security services (intelligence) of the world are present on any Internet resource and disguise themselves as “ordinary editors with respected profiles.” I suppose that you know about it. In this connection, it is suspected that the removal of article about Andrey Davydov is the work of such security services because this has happened regularly in the past and continues to happen today on other sites, and the scheme is the same everywhere. I’m asking you to pay attention to this. Thank you in advance. KateBazilevsky (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Jewish terror in Israel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page is an attempt to translate (without adding any information whatsoever) a well established page which already exists in Hebrew: טרור יהודי בישראל and Russian: Список терактов, осуществлённых израильтянами против палестинцев. Answering the deleting admin reason for marking the page as an Attack page: at no point in the text is any individual named a terrorist (especially not without citations), individuals are only said to have been accused and trialed for terrorism charges by the Israeli justice system, which is well cited in the Hebrew original page. Further, the original page is very lengthy and in depth: individual statements and phrasing/translation may be challenged, but the page contains many un-refuted facts. Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The deleted page was not "unambiguous advertising." It was fully sourced to independent sources. The article concerns a leading firm of English attorneys. The WP:Community deserves the right to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
As per talk page, article has been created solely by someone with a close professional relationship, with no other contributors, and is of limited value to Wikipedia. Subject is also of questionable notability, appearing in only one project of note the focus of which was not the subject. Jslix201 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was apparently deleted (twice) because it was written by an undisclosed paid editor (or maybe two of them). I am a newly contracted editor (paid) who wants to write and submit an acceptable article for this person, whom I consider to be Notable (or I wouldn't have taken the contract), and I am disclosing the information here. To my knowledge the previous deletions did not rely on any conclusion that the subject was not Notable but only that they were written by undisclosed paid editors. The deleting Administrator did not reply favorably to my request for unsalting this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
List of sources at the AfD:
From the closing admin's talk page:
The company has received substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. It received a detailed article in the financial magazine Forbes. It received a detailed article from the San Jose Mercury News, which has a circulation of over 500,000. It received a detailed article in the technology magazine InformationWeek, which has a circulation of 200,000. Regarding Taiwan's stock exchanges, Array Networks was "first foreign company to list in Taiwan", according to The Wall Street Journal. The "delete" editors either failed to explain why reliable newspaper and magazine articles were press releases or made arguments that violated Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. Admins routinely close AfDs as delete even when when there is a lopsided vote count in favor of retention by discounting non-policy-based "keep" votes. They should do likewise for non-policy-based "delete" votes. See for example the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie (6–2 in support of retention), which was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1#Phoenix Marie. Overturn to no consensus.Cunard (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Professor at University of London; 6 published academic books, including one from Oxford University Press.
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Professor at University of London; 7 published academic books, including one from Oxford University Press, one from Cambridge University Press, one from University of California Press, and one from Yale University Press. Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. .
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Professor of history at University of London; 3 published academic books, including one from Cambridge University Press]
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Professor of professor of history classics, and archeology at University of London; 17 published academic books, including two from Oxford University Press & one from Cambridge University Press.
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Professor of ancient history at University of London; 2 published academic books, including one from Cambridge University Press. President of Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Professor of professor of classics and ancient history at University of London; 2 published academic books, one from Oxford University Press, one from Yale University Press.
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
First of all, I like to ask whoever nominated this, what does he know about this "little field" and challenge him to elaborate on this? Does he think its all about running his RTR Traxxas up and down the road over some home made ramp? Speaking of notability, after googling "HPI Racing" on the book section and news section, thats where the notability comes in, also [19] [20] nd it does have a listing on Bloomberg. If all else its not notable, it win major R/C racing championships but under the Hot Bodies brand, [21] and I could find more if I have the time
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi, I understand you deleted the page for Honest Tea's co-founder & TeaEO Seth Goldman. While the rationale for deleting the page of a CEO that has no accolades beyond the company seem reasonable, Mr. Goldman built a $130M+ business, is a NY Times best-selling author [22], on the board of the American Beverage Association [23], and was named the #1 "Disruptor" in the Beverage industry by Beverage World Magazine [24]. Additionally his parents were prominent professors at Harvard University. I have corresponded with who I believe is the deleting admin and he recommended I take this step next. ReviewingEditor (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted as non-notable, individual is being talked about on BBC news and other news sources, deleting admin not-available Lacunae (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was deleted claiming he was 'little known'. He is one of the main anchors for CTV Atlantic and thus is broadcast to 4 Canadian provinces daily as well as across Canada online and with digital cable/satellite. He is also a producer for "Live At 5". And is involved in several charities. He is an anchor on the weekend evening & late night news, as well as the weekdays from 5-7PM & late night. I suggest that the page be undeleted so it can be reworked. I have not contacted the original deleter as from the discussion they seem biased to considering this frivolous. Lady Noremon (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was marked for speedy deletion under G4; previous versions were deleted for failing GNG. This new article has additional material beyond the previous article (which I didn't author but found in the Internet Archive), including Alahverdian's lobbying work in both Rhode Island and Ohio, on behalf of foster care kids and the Armenian community, and his lawsuit against Rhode Island DCYF. As a newbie editor, I may not fully grok GNG, but it feels to me like this merits additional review beyond G4 deletion. Also, happy to accept advice generally on how to determine GNG. I've read the page several times, and it still feels like there's a level of subjectivity that I'm not understanding. ThomG (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yook Sungjae was discussed in October, 2014. That time, he was just member of K-pop boy band, but now He acting in 2 TV Drama (Who Are You: School 2015 and Plus Nine Boys.) as Main/Leading role. and also acted in one series (Reply 1994) as starring role. That it is can be seen that the notable actor. Kanghuitari (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was a factual description of a widely used software application in-keeping with other such software descriptions. Maptitude underpins the political redistricting process in the USA for example, and fact checking release dates for example via Wikipedia is common. 96.233.43.85 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) article history temporarily undeleted for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please just check http://mse.ju.edu.et and http://mse.ju.edu.et/booklet.pdf This project has also been featured in other Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia must report creative projects/persons in developing countries particularly Africa. 213.55.105.122 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC) here is a national report of the project: http://www.ethpress.gov.et/herald/index.php/herald/society/9656-an-enlightening-facet-for-change-education Abebe944 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
please this article Rockette_Morton does not meet Wikipedia Notability Article Guidelines ... please i have proposed this ARTICLE FOR Speedy Deletion ... please can someone help by review the article Samat lib (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus or keep. Four delete votes including the nominator (one of which was perfunctory). Three keep votes. Decision was taken at a time when content that contributed to notability had just been removed from the article (including 5 RS references) and before the relevance of that material had been considered in the debate. Article subject met WP:BASIC. -Philafrenzy (talk) (Nominated for Deletion review by Philafrenzy (talk) Above is written by Philafrenzy. I corrected the formatting per the request made here: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#New_request). No opinion on DRV nor on AfD. ― Padenton|✉ 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The was no consensus to keep. Closers explanation is problematic. "After reviewing it, in the absence of another vote, I counted a 3-2 vote in favor of Keep." AfDs are not headcounts, the should be decided on the strength of policy based arguments. For the most part those arguing keep have weak arguments. WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines is not a policy. Both Dirtlawyer1 and MASEM directly address this in their !votes. Those "notability guidelines" are bad, relying too much on inherited notability (#4). Spatms claims that "this team is part of the national association governing rugby". That does not make them notable so that claim should be dismissed. Annieann1's !vote was that the article has primary sources, not a valid argument for notability so should be dismissed. Another problem with the closers head count is the numbers, "3-2 vote in favor of Keep." If one were to go purely on headcount then it would be 3-3. Closer inexcusably dismisses the nominator. Other justifications closer gives for their keep close are that it does no harm, there are other articles worse off, a lot of hard work was put into it. They are bad reasons. This should have come down to WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 explanation of why it fell short was a much stronger argument than any set out by Barryjjoyce and any of the "hit and run" keeps. Other reasons for closing keep were " players who have played in this program went on to play on the United States national rugby union team, and that the conference the team is part of the Southeastern Collegiate Rugby Conference." Neither were part of the discussion. This is a virtual supervote from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In summary, I came in with no background and an objective mind about the decision to be made, and was not afraid to make it with the available information. The AFD had been open for more than 2 weeks with enough consensus in my judgement to close it, and, even if in the next 3 days, 5 hit and run deletes came up, they would have had to have very strong arguments given what I provided above. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Response to duffbeerforme:
This may or may not be a bit off-topic, but since there has been much discussion here about the role of WikiProject advice pages
There has been a fair amount of discussion here about how much weight to place on these advice pages
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
1 + movies Dead Rising: Watchtower as Zombies, The Burning Dead as Zombies, Juarez 2045. + 234 51 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Half-Life (2011) 23[28]3Film Review: 'The Hope Factory'. 3 4 Red Square Screenings< Maxim Stoyalov 4 5 [29]. Stoyalov5 67</ref> 8 1 2 3 4 56. 1 2 1 7, 8. 100bestmovies 9 10kino-likbez< Stoyalov Maxim Stoyalov1234 ATM 1 2 3 4 Maxim Stoyalov 1 2 3
|
| 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
He is a american male model known by the international media. Sources abound to prove his existence and the work he did. I do not understand why the page was deleted three times without ever having had a formal discussion. I want the page to be restored in order to correct the mistakes that caused the deletion. The following sources: [30] [31] [32] [33][34] [35] [36] Brenhunk (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
