Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 16-31
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted by User:Kurykh after an AfD discussion earlier this month. Kurykh made the decision to delete based on his opinion that this is news coverage and therefore doesn't belong, despite its meeting the notability standard. The discussion itself had an ambiguous result. I propose that, since the subject is notable, the article should be restored. Everyking 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article has been continually speedy deleted without ever having an AfD discussion. She passes the WP:PORNBIO notability criteria by having won a FAME award. Epbr123 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A number of references exist, for example http://kotaku.com/gaming/porn/doa-tomb-raider-interactive-sex-flicks-283675.php and a number of websites dedicated to the term, such as http://rule34.of-the-internet.com/ . It seems to be a long-lasting meme which has occurred in multiple places. I came to wikipedia looking to find an origin of the term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Has now rejoined a professional club (Rotherham United) [1] and also had a previous spell as a professional at Derby County. Also players like Andy Liversidge have articles although they have not played in a professional league. Kingjamie 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 deletion of this wiki was due to misunderstanding and old information. Smiling Gator Productions has long since handed production of the game over to General Computers Inc. Although funding was not available a year and a half ago with SGP, GC has since taken up the project and is expected to not only have a closed beta start early August, 2007 (http://www.twilightwar.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=80) but also has an expected release date within 2007. To delete this wiki on the premise that it is a game that will not make it into production is highly illogical and simply incorrect. I would expect that the game wiki would be restored, if you have any doubt as to why you should restore the wiki, please let me know and I will resolve any issues you may have. Thanks. Extra Resources that may help in your research: http://www.twilightwar.com http://www.twilightwarhq.com BackhillAccess 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was deleted as being an orphaned fair use image, but the image was clearly in use on this edit which was made a full eight days prior to the deletion date and was the current edit at the time of deletion. fuzzy510 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 nominate to undelete because it's more than a temporary come-and-go-again "meme," which was the reason it was deleted. I recently saw a TV documentary about it, even though this event happened years ago. Chantessy 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sufficient notability evidence exists (print articles) although was not cited in article. Speedy page deletion appears not to have been proposed by admin, so deletion review should be first port of call. Flumpaphone 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 uploaded an image and provided source, licensing information, and detailed fair use rationale. The reasons given for immediate deletion of the image were AP photos are blatant copyvio and AP photos are not fair-use. The article in which the image was used now is at AfD and the admin who deleted the image has participated significantly in that AfD. I do not believe that immediate deletion of the image was appropriate, particularly in view of the detailed fair use rationale provided for the image's use. I would like a review of this matter. Since the image may affect the AfD, I ask for a speedy restoration of the image while this DRV is going on if that is an appropriate action. -- Jreferee (Talk) 11:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. However, it contained early discussions of Wikipedia's policies, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules linked to a version of it before it was deleted. I'd like to suggest it be restored and moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. Father Goose 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
At present there are at least 7 different Latin alphabets used by Tatars. IQTElif is one of them. The various alphabets are (there is only a difference of a few letters between most of them): 1. Janalif (there was also pre-Janalif, used for a few years) 2. Yanalif-2 3. Yanalif-3 4. IQTElif 5. Zamanalif 6. Inalif 7. Inalif-2 8. There is also another variant, which may or may not have a name. 9. People also frequently use mish-mash writing that has no system whatsoever. Tatar alphabet has been abused for more than a century: in the interests of weakening the language it was forced thru real Arabic, made up Arabic, pre-Janalif, Janalif, and Cyrillic in the first half of 20th century. And switch to Latin alphabet has been forbidden for purely political, not linguistic reasons, which is all the more evident because it was done in Moscow. Different people use different alphabets, and most of them don't mark the alphabet used. Each alphabet's name is irrelevant for individual users. IQTElif has only a couple of letters different from others. Some examples of such orthography are below: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tatar-l/message/10044 http://www.kultur.gov.tr/gaspirali/default.asp?lehce_ID=7&strDil=English transliterates Tatar Cyrillic to Tatar Latin. http://www.kultur.gov.tr/tr/dosyagoster.aspx?dil=1&belgeanah=109902&dosyaisim=emirhaneniki.pdf https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5295 Additions: http://aton.ttu.edu/kirim_lyrics_tugtil.asp http://www.tatar.ro/articole/tukay_ve_tatarlik.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv-4Xt9yN8 http://www.tatar.ro/video.php?video=KAZAN_TATAR_TURK_ALTINORDU_Abdullah_Tukay_Nogai_Bashkird&id=20 http://akidil.net/tatar/tatarsongs.htm http://www.turkfolkloru.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=75 http://www.tuqay.narod.ru/AbdullahTukay.pdf http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/II-3_Eylul2005/oz2-32005/2-3oz_41fkilic.html http://ekitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr/dosyagoster.aspx?DIL=1&BELGEANAH=109902&DOSYAISIM=RavilFeyzullin.pdf http://www45.brinkster.com/karachaymalkar/tatarturklerininbuyuksairiabdullahtukay.htm I'm also listing the references from the article: Zaman Talebí. Şehri Qazan, 04/06/1994. Tatarstan Republic Law No. 2352 of 09/15/99 Tahsin Banguğolu. Türkçenin Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu. ISBN 975160268-8. (The Tatar vowels cube is inspired by a reference to a similar cube for Turkish language used by a famous European Turkologist, Jean Deny, and presented in this book as Deny'nin Kübü, i.e. Deny's Cube (e.g., see pages 36-37 in 3rd edition); Vowel represented by Ee is presented in this book at the intersection of the front and wide (open) edges (and é is also shown on the front edge itself), but is shown in Tatar vowels cube somewhat lower based on the IPA). The book also mentions that vowel represented by é is found in Old and Middle (time-wise) Turkish (Turkic), and is still encountered in the first syllable of some words in some Anatolian dialects, although it is not a part of the alphabet.) If Zamanalif has a right to be on wikipedia, so does IQTElif. It is very sad to see Wikipedia acting as a censorship tool serving policies like Putin's prohibition of Latin alphabet. Any attempt to delete this content on such an obviously disputed subject from wikipedia is politically motivated, is not in the spirit of wikipedia and is a disservice to Tatars and humanity. If this content is deleted, one could question a lot of other content attributed to Tatar language. What all this could lead to is a Cyrillic environment, which definintely doesn't represent use of Tatar language online. There is no rationale for deleting this content. At best, it could be listed as debated, which i would agree with, given 7 alphabets in use. This deletism is unsubstantiated. Ultranet 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This page shouldn't be cluttered with this discussion. I created a page in my user space for discussing this, where everyone can present their opinions: User talk:Amire80/İQTElif. Thanks for cooperation. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion policy violations The deleted content does not violate a copyright, is verifiable in a reliable source, and does not include negative content about living persons.--Ultranet 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tuotu is a popular software many Chinese people compared with Thunder of the Xunlei. Its English version is the Rabbit. Search its English name(Tutuo) in the search engines there are many English pages and many more Chinese pages about it. Search its Chinese name there are more pages. Another user edits the page some minutes after the page is created, and after some minutes another user post speedy deletion, the article are deleted and the admin said he doesn't know Chinese. Is tuotu notable to the wikipedia?Fairness528ele 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 request for deletion was biased strongly biased, I've read the user page of user Pablo and it says the following: I have come to find out that any group with the word truth in its name exists for the sole purpose of spreading lies. How to find articles that should be deleted The best way to find an article that fails Wikipedia's policies on inclusion is to use an article's what links here page. Often, crappy articles link to more well-known articles within the same subject. Here are some what links here links that are especially helpful in finding bad articles: * Loose Change * 9/11 Truth Movement * Daily Kos More coming! The reasons for deletion no longer apply. After reading the discussions on previous deletion, most arguments were concerning the fact that the movie was not well known, using a simple search on Google I found out the movie Terrorstorm has more hits than another movie which does have it's own article, America: freedom to fascism. Joehoe665 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 image was nominated for deletion and the IfD was subsequently closed by admin User:Nv8200p as "kept"[23], citing that the image is considered in the public domain until proven otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the burden of proof is actually the other way around, that an image claimed to be in the public domain would be deleted unless it is proven to actually be in the public domain. The image page actually provides no evidence to back up the claim that it is in the public domain. In light of that, I am listing the image here for deletion review, for reconsideration to delete the image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It does not fail WP:NOT, and I found sources for WP:WEB: Also, it was distributed with Weekly Shonen Jump, so it is notable (WP:WEB, #3). VDZ 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 have been working on this article for a while and believe it just about meets the required level? If not please can it be restored to my user page so that I can work on it further? P.S apologies if im going about this wrong, im a bit of a novice here, but I do like it! Video killed the radiostar 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) xxx
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ryulong deleted this page twice. It's a notable cat. These are the sources:
I didn't even get to build it? Fromage911 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, my AFD thing I did after requested to show it was a valid article got deleted too by Ryulong because he said it was useless: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Lee_(cat) Please let me know, and sorry Fromage911 07:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Overturn Even before the references were added the article asserted enough notability to not make it a speedy deletion by mentioning the international presscoverage. Agathoclea 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 sure that the decision in the AFD was really right. removing the "Don't be so deletionist" and WP:INTERESTING comments, the headcount is at 8:3. The deletes did give reasons. Additionally, the two that !voted "Weak keep" were rather wary on how encyclopedic the article was. Will (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Currenly the most popular video on youtube, and like it or not people want to know about it. If you really care about wikipedia, don't delete the chocolate rain entry. It informs those who read it (self-included, after I googled the cache), and harms no-one who doesn't. If a group of vigilant wikipedians really wants to prevent other people from accessing this page and learning from it, they'll probably succeed. But before you go down that path, ask yourself- why? What purpose does it serve? If people are truly so uniformly convinced the topic doesn't matter, they simply won't request info on it/ask it in the first place. Bottom line: Chocolate Rain is all over Youtube and has been featured on nationally syndicated radio shows, and thousands of people are coming to wikipedia for info on it. "Noteworthy" is of anything, a gauge of what people are interested in reading about. And regardless of what self-appointed tastemakers think, Chocolate Rain currently fits that criterion. I restored this article because it had the info I wanted about this song. Wikipedia let me down for the first time in a long time by refusing to provide me with information about this widespread internet fad. I and countless thousands of others were relying on wikipedia to provide us with information on this admittedly stupid internet fad. I see no reason why the hard work of fellow contributors written to address this topic should be deleted by third parties that think they know what I, and thousands of others, should and shouldn't care about, and should or shouldn't deem "noteworthy" I've seen the video, I know it sucks, and that it won't be "noteworthy" in 6 months. THATS NOT THE POINT. A main reason wikipedia has an advantage over regular encyclopedias is because it covers this type of thing, good or bad. Work on wikipedia with the aim of providing information, not deleting other peoples work because it isnt "noteworthy" in YOUR opinion. -jjrsJeffjrstewart 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Admin closed the debate with the following rationale: 'However there is no information about how rare this coin is, where any samples are located, whether any can be photographed, etc. Because of this, the image can not be seen to pass NFCC #1. Further, there is no information on the source or copyright-holder of the photograph, so NFCC #10 fails as well. Sorry.' However, on the talk page itself is the answer to this very question: 'CBM (the nominator), for your information, most of the coins from the "Indo-Greek" series that you tagged are unique specimens, which are located at the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, where it is not allowed for the general public to take photographs of them'. This is a request for review on procedural grounds. I feel as though the admin did not take into proper account the information within the discussion, and that the second guideline that s/he gives can be remedied rather than used as rationale for deletion. Therefore, please review this deletion, as well as the related coin image deletions. CaveatLectorTalk 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was nominated for deletion (see discussion here) on the basis that it failed notability guidelines as it lacked non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. the arguments for "Keep" asserted that because the author- David Bukay (and other authors used by him within the book) was notable, a seperate article on one of his publications was thus also automatically notable. the discussion was later closed as no consensus (default to keep), though still i believe the fundamental lack of any substantial reliable source coverage cannot be ignored. i raised the issue with the closing administrator, but as he disagreed, i decided i ought to run this case by other experienced users. ITAQALLAH 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Meets WP Music,WP:N HarryHall86 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 just need it for a few weeks (at most, tomorrow I'll be out of town until--I don't know) so I can merge it into Spells in Harry Potter. If this doesn't work, could someone send me the codes for the page (Wiki style) to therequiembellishere@gmail.com? Many thanks. Therequiembellishere 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
That picture claimed to be necessary for showing an historical event that can not be reprodued in anyway and the debate was completely in favor of keeping it. Pejman47 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Battle Against Bald is a valuable resource for people seeking hair restoration. It shows informative videos and offers tons of information about hair loss. It's a blog, not a company trying to make money. Respond2 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion (well, the deletion vote turned into a redirect) was carried out a long time ago. It clearly passes the notability test, and there are now many other University Police departments with pages on wikipedia (see Category:United States school police departments). Besides, the people on the Norwegian wikipedia don't think it unimportant enough, (no:Universitetet_i_Washingtons_Politi). This article clearly should have not been turned into a redirect. I propose restoring it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute "me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it. Stakes Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians Players
Events
Discuss
That being said, I would support moving this category to a page with a different title. “Pseudo-religion” implies something phony or inauthentic. This is presumptuous for a subject matter where the buzzword is “Faith” rather than “Fact.” One person’s absolute truth is another person’s pseudo religion. The faithful have all kinds of pejoratives for those who differ in their beliefs: heathen, goyum, infidel, gentile, gray-face, damned, condemned, and so on. The bottom line is that alternative religion, or subculture, or minority world-view would be more descriptive.--Libertyguy 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, in order to avoid being tagged, I'll mention that Bigwyrm posted a message to my talk page as well. I will also note that this is my first Wikipedia space contribution in two days (so clearly I'm not an active member of the community and my opinion is useless?). I will also note that I discovered the original deletion debate as it was being closed and so was unable to participate in it. I can only speak for Category:Discordian Wikipedians myself, because I'm not really familiar with the others. The only argument given for deletion that I cannot thoroughly dismiss is Sawblade05's “Does not belong here,” to which I can only say “Yes, it does.” (Or perhaps “WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”) The nominator's assertion that the religions do not exist I personally find extremely insulting. Discordianism obviously exists, and I don't think we'd have an article about it if it didn't. The assertion that no collaboration is possible is also false. As DenisMoskowitz pointed out above, Discordians have collaborated before. The assertion that “they are parodies or satirical religions” is an opinion that may be true, but is not relevant. It says right in his own sentence that they are religions, and I can personally assure you that there is at least one adherent of Discordianism. I see obvious elements of parody and satire in Satanism, but Category:Satanist Wikipedians seems to be free from being deleted for this reason. The assertion that “People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats” is about as relevant to Discordianism as it is to Islam. After all, don't Muslims express their disbelief in thousands of deities in Tawḥīd? Discordianism, FSMism, and IPUism are even named after deities! Black Falcon's assertion that “There is no collaborative value to these categories” has already been done away with by showing that there is. His point that “Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. ” is a very good one, but again DenisMoskowitz has shown that the ability and desire is there. ^demon's assertion that “There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research” is incomprehensible to me. It has of course been shown that there is collaborative potential, but the original research comment is just plain strange. Discordianism, like most Wikipedia articles, is not as well cited as it should be, but is it all original research? Sufism “is primarily concerned with direct personal experience” (according to its article); is that article therefore original research as well? Octane asserts that “The nominated categories cover one article each”, but Category:Discordianism currently has 35 pages and three subcategories. Any other reasons for deletion I have either overlooked (if I have please correct me!) or have not yet been voiced. I'm not really sure if there are any obvious procedural violations in the original discussion (just poor reasoning), but I think this counts as “significant new information” per DRV purpose statement 3 (even though that is guided at articles). In summary, I believe that at the least the deletion of Category:Discordian Wikipedians should be overturned. I cannot personally provide much information as to what should be done with the others. — The Storm Surfer 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, Bigwyrm notes that I endorsed the deletion of all the religion cats, but rather egregiously misrepresents my position on the issue. I specifically stated (at first) that I did not endorse the mass deletion, but when I was informed that the categories were being used to canvass (like what was done here), I supported the deletion proposal. I didn't participate in the DRV, because I really didn't feel THAT strongly about it. Seraphimblade takes me to task for targeting certain "religions" (yes, the scare quotes are appropriate in this case). Four of the five main articles for the categories state that they are parody religions, which means they are not real. I repeat, they are not real. This is the crux of the issue. See Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which specifically state that they are parody or satirical religions; Church of the SubGenius notes that it is an offshoot of Discordianism, and later notes that it mocks Scientology and New Age religion. Cthulhu notes that the deity was created by H. P. Lovecraft as a plot device for his series of books. I am of the belief that the "religion" category should be reserved for real religions, or the lack thereof. There are several categories that are appropriate for non-believers (Category:Atheist Wikipedians and its subcategories, or perhaps Category:Bright Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Any religion that states in its introduction that it is a parody does not qualify as a religious belief in and of itself, and is more appropriate for some type of humor category. We go to great lengths to avoid offending people with the octopus-like scope of WP:BLP, which now covers dead people as well; why should we allow categories which openly mock traditional religions to exist? Note also that this does not affect the userboxen associated with the categories; while I think they are pointless, I would oppose any attempt to delete the userboxen in question. I wasn't around for the great userbox purge, but I would have been there swinging against the deletionists in that case. A userbox is appropriate for noting the affiliation. If there is a consensus that the categories should be restored, I really think that they need to be moved out of the religion (or philosophy) categories into a category of their own. (Somewhere in Category:Wikipedians by interest would be appropriate.) I begin my vacation tomorrow, so my internet access will be spotty to non-existent. If I don't respond, it's not because I don't have a response to whatever you say, it's because I cannot log on or am actually doing something more important than Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Compromise (not to highlight my opinion, but because we need another section break)
References
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This file was deleted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson for the reason of "18 USC Section 2257". I'm unaware of which speedy deletion criteria that falls under. That law requires producers of porn to maintain records verifying the identities of models used. Since the image was produced outside the US and is not porn but simple nudity, which is exempted from that law, I can't really see how it would apply here. In addition, I don't think that would make this a proper speedy deletion even if it did apply. -Nard 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 company and its product is notable. Its motherboard and power supply is very notable in Hong Kong and China. Its motherboard is one of a few major brand comparing to Intel and ASUSTek[32]. It has 17500 entries in Google. It is unreasonable that the article was deleted within a few hours after its creation, without notifying any major authors and I have no chance to put a hang-on tag. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Game is notable - online numbers claims can be verified This makes no sense, the article was apparenty flagged as needing references since February which was brought to my attention today. References were added today along with links to external reviews and an entire DMOZ category for the MUD, and suddenly the page is deleted. Meanwhile many of the muds on the list of MUDs in "borderline" status cite reviews on Topmudsites and/or The Mud Connector with a note that they will probably be OK based on the reviews - Aardwolf had many of both. After spending several hours today trying to fix our page this is a slap in the face with zero feedback - would appreciate some transparency here please. Part of the contention appeared to be the claim of being one of the "most popular" - we have notified the administrator that we were working on this, but were not given time to complete. The game is notable and online numbers can be verified at any time simply by logging in and looking. If it takes a third party to verify our numbers that can be done too, but just deleting the page right after we start dialog seems unreasonable. Please reconsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardlasher (talk • contribs).
[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: So you are deciding the references at the two top ranked non-wikipedia sites for 'Mud' and 'Muds', dating back to 1996, are not reliable? DMOZ review of the site and granting it's own category is not noteable? If you decide MUDs in general aren't notable fair enough, but to arbitrarily decide one of the largest MUDs around isn't notable? Why the deletion *today* of all days when the article has been flagged for months? The day we contact you for help and confirm intent to provide those references? Sorry, but this just looks like someone wanted us gone quick before we came back with the necessary info.
[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: There was a lot said on the articles 'talk' page today. Apparently this was in the wrong place and should have been on the delete discussion, my bad for not knowing the inner workings of Wikipedia. Please read the 'talk' page from the article before it was deleted and the exchanges with Martijn.
""Sounds good, thanks! Can you include a link to info on the process to move from user space back to an article? Appreciate your help with this.[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 04:38 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
South African Defunct Magazine Ethnopunk 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This band is an upcoming band and have been the artist of the day on spin.com [[34]]. Jmaurer2 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This band has played at such notable places as Summerfest and are scheduled to play at Bonnaroo [35] and Lollapalooza [36]. --Jmaurer2 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Ok at this point the band does not meet the criteria but will I be able to add them later on without issue? --Jmaurer2 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 deletion, though valid, did not take steps to allow the creator to userfy, preserve, or Wikify the article content. It is with boldness and the assumption of good faith that I wish the deleting admin to seek a better interpretation of the consensus, or allow the creator to restore the page for userfication. WaltCip 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
If he's going to make an ass of himself and file FEC complaints [37] people should know <BLP violation removed - Corvus cornix 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)>. 74.134.253.87 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was very well-sourced, all reliable verifiable sources, all arguments for deletion claim he was not notable as a sportsman, which is patently true, but he is indeed notable as per media coverage as a possible professional sportsman. Claim of non-notability based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than verifiability and reliability of sources; it leaves a vaguely fancrufty flavor in the mouth. Already undertook a delete which was overturned in DRV, and this new AfD was closed by one admin as
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
INCONSISTENT_POLICY My entry for AudioSparx was deleted and protected from recreation. This is patently unfair, especially considering that you continue to list the page for another very similar site (SoundDogs). Our two sites were started at around the same time...in reality ours began operations prior to SoundDogs.com, and while they have a larger client base, we are still and currently one of the largest sites on the Internet for licensing and publishing all forms of digital audio content (especially sound effects). Our site, AudioSparx.com, was previously named UltimateSoundArchive.com. UltimateSoundArchive.com domain was purchased in 1998, however, the site had already been in operation for over two years by 1998 as a sub-web under Advances.Com domain name. To substantiate this, here's a link to the Advances.Com home page circa 1998, which has a link to our "sound archive", which when you follow that link (http://web.archive.org/web/19981212033703/www.ultimatesoundarchive.com/) you will see the original cover page of the Ultimate Sound Archive, with a link to the home page of the Ultimate Sound Archive circa 1998 (http://web.archive.org/web/19981206211452/www.ultimatesoundarchive.com/MAIN.cfm). Here's a reference that was created in 1998 that further substantiates what I'm saying: http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/docsrch.pl?TYPE=Film-&-Video-Production (search for "ultimate sound archive" there) I've included additional supporting information below. The bottom line is that this is a site that should be covered in Wikipedia because of the historical significance of being one of the first, if not the first digital audio sites to ever operate on the Internet. Or if you still really feel that our site is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then please maintain uniform standards and delete SoundDogs from the site, or please explain to me why SoundDogs should be permitted to remain on Wikipedia and AudioSparx shouldn't be....what's the difference?? Thanks, Quinn Coleman quinn@audiosparx.com
Registrant: Make this info private Navarr Enterprises, Inc. 7810 NW 4th ST Plantation, FL 33324 US Domain Name: ULTIMATESOUNDARCHIVE.COM Administrative Contact , Technical Contact : Navarr Enterprises, Inc. admin@audiosparx.com 7810 NW 4th ST Plantation, FL 33324 US Phone: 954-727-3189 Fax: 954-252-2352 Record expires on 30-Jul-2007 Record created on 31-Jul-1998 Database last updated on 05-Oct-2006
Registrant: Make this info private Advances.Com 7810 NW 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 US Domain Name: ADVANCES.COM Administrative Contact : Administration, info@ADVANCES.COM Advances.Com, Inc. 7810 NW 4th ST Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 US Phone: 999 999 9999 Fax: 999 999 9999 Technical Contact : Advances.Com support@ADVANCES.COM 7810 NW 4TH ST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33324-1904 US Phone: 954-452-8466 Fax: 954-452-1139 Record expires on 22-Oct-2014 Record created on 23-Oct-1996 Database last updated on 05-Oct-2006 Qdogquinn 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
See also: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13#Image:Past Doctors.jpg or Image:Past doctors.jpg - clear consensus that both images were used for different purposes, passed WP:NFCC, and consensus to keep the image. Will (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Pobladores, the deletion of this page by initiated by Android79 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pobladores is very short providing little or no context to the reader. I am requesting that the deletion be reviewed. The information in the article is intellectual relevant and historically accurate. It has been verified by a number of credible sources. If the page was too short, I can add more information to it. I think that it was deleted too quickly. Gonder 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 wasnt around to respond to the prod but this isnt a vanety page, William Bain is quite a noted accademic in International Relations theory. Talkshowbob 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 on the Dash Signature page was an article about the history and development of an audio software company, Dash Signature. The content is worthy of inclusion on the following grounds: 1) the "Virtual Studio Technology" industry is relatively small and young - Luigi Felici and WilliamK, the original founders of Dash Signature, have been involved at some level or another with this computer-based music instrument industry since its inception. They both still remain active and prolific developers in the independent VST industry (although they no longer work together). Several of their products were landmarks, pre-empting ideas that were later picked up on by larger, mainstream companies. For example, their TubiLeSax, a saxophone VST instrument, got further developed and commercialized by LinPlug. EMMKnagalis was the first ever dedicated ethnic instrument sound module in VST format, paving the way for other products. DaAlpha 2K was one of the earliest VST emulations of a hardware synth, followed by their cult classic DaHornet. 2)The idea of the page is NOT to advertise, but to note some important contributers to a new technology for musicians. By only focusing on "mainstream" developers (several mainstream developers have wiki articles that are not contested, and contain blantant advertising- for instance, the Native Instruments page), Wikipedia would simply be recreating a balance of power where commercialism and capital outway innovation and independance. I hope the deletion will be reviewed in favor of the page being returned. Paulrwalsh 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia must be consistent rather than unfair,assertion of notability and WP:COI if were there for Dash Signature, they are the just same for pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fxpansion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments, and please note that I did read the "What about article x?" in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but it fails as it reads: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article" Wrong! Someone stopped the creation of Dash Signature article. --Luigi 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
About sources to site: there is an issue here- with writing unwritten histories sources are few and far between, in fact source might be, for instance, the collective archive of the KvR forum - how do you propose to reference that? Paulrwalsh
ok, so if I can cite some sources for such claims, the article may be considered for inclusion? I will collect some sources over the new few days. Thanks. But, I must, say, as a user, Wikipedia is definitely not a database of "articles [that] are just summaries of published sources". Paulrwalsh
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Mugshot of counter-culture comedian George Carlin. This file was deleted by Howcheng (talk · contribs) pursuant to an ifd nomination. It was undeleted a short time later by Alkivar (talk · contribs) with the claim that "debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete". Abu badali (talk · contribs) brought the issue up at AN/I, whereupon this image was again deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs). Note that in IfD closings policy often trumps consensus, or lack thereof. Note also that the image was not a blatant copyright violation and there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies. The copyright status of mugshots varies based on jurisdiction and local laws, so the tag defaults to a fair use claim. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article on a Malaysian actress got tagged for A7 at the start of an AfD, and was deleted while I was typing up my keep !vote. Arguably, it might technically meet A7, since it doesn't explicitly assert that she is a popular or significant actress. However, despite the lack of notability boilerplate, the evidence suggests that she is very popular in Malaysia. She won the Anugerah Bintang Popular Award for "Most Popular TV Actress" in 2000, 2001, and 2002.[41] She has a major role on a popular TV series, Gerak Khas, and its spinoff feature films. She's got 50 News Archive hits[42], and her raw Ghit count of about 20K[43] strikes me as pretty good considering that a) Malaysia is a less wired country with a smaller population, and b) her peak of popularity seems to have been around 2000-2002. Overturn speedy; I'm indifferent to whether the article is relisted on AfD, if anyone still doubts her notability. Groggy Dice T | C 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
As explained in the discussion in my talk page, the article is notable and I did referenced more than just websites, I referenced two leading newspapers and media sites that wrote articles ABOUT BWITTY and not just mentioned bwitty. I think it should be recosidered. I don't like being called a sockpuppet, because I do try and write articles on various subjects. I wrote many Israeli atricles and I put time and effort into this one, and I want the deletion to be recosidered because if I referenced to articles about this subject it is notable according to the Wikipedia rules. According to WP:CORP, bwitty has been the subject of secondary sources. And those sources are the biggest newspapers in Israel, you can't get more reliable, and independent of the subject. It's not Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject. I saw a few more in-print articles, and I'm quite sure I saw something on the TV at the time. But, I can only reference to what I have online. MyWiseData 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. There is no lack of a full deletion process. This article went through a full AfD as 'BWitty' back in April 2007. It closed as Delete. It just went through a second AfD on 22 July that was speedy closed as Delete. See also log for Bwitty and log for BWitty. Most recently its notability issues were discussed at length at User talk:MyWiseData#Deletion of bWitty. As someone pointed out in the 2nd AfD, BWitty gets less than one hit per day on Alexa; there are about 7 million web sites that are more popular. Take a look at http://www.answers.com/bwitty if you feel it may have been unjustly neglected. I can't tell if the first and second articles were the same (BW versus Bw) because I can't see the first one; however the version now at answers.com does not seem to have third-party references that establish notability. The logs show that one spelling was moved to the other in May, and User:utcursch's name appears in the log because he deleted a redirect. I filled in the AfD pointer in the DRV header above to point to the 'BWitty' AfD since I don't perceive the criticisms raised there have been answered. If you think the articles are substantively different, you can undo this. EdJohnston 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a common phrase used in New Berlin, put it back up! It will catch on. Brian002100 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please just restore it. Its not hurting you. I will make it appear nice. I have like 20 people working on it that want it restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian002100 (talk • contribs) I would like to see this page replaced. This quote has become popular in New Berlin, WI and around Milwaukee, WI. If this page does not deserve to be replaced, I believe it should be added to the New Berlin, Wisconsin page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladder123 (talk • contribs)
What nonsense - what do you know about the saying "Get in the truck"? Let people use this site the way it was intended.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was originally tagged as an A1 (lacking context). After I mentioned it in a discussion as an example of an over-hasty tagging, ugen64 looked at the article and deleted it under A7. However, I certainly see the article's claim to be a "long running Malaysian television series" that became the basis for three films to be an assertion of notability. Searching Google News Archive turns up 145 hits[45], of which about 115 or so seem to be related to the show or its movies (GK apparently means "special forces" in Malay, so there's an army unit and some other entities). These hits describe GK as popular, a hit, a blockbuster, etc. If these claims of popularity can be debunked, it should be at an AfD; the subject passes the A7 threshold. So, overturn. Groggy Dice T | C 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn and delete - yes, it is true that more people wanted the articles kept than deleted. However, AFD is not a vote. The arguments offered by the keepers do not address the cut-and-dried WP:PLOT policy violations of these articles. The 2000s article was AFDed and closed no consensus with the only argument saving it being that the article would be brought into compliance with policy. This editing didn't happen and in fact no editing happened on the article at all. The "we didn't have enough time" and the "we need the articles to write better articles" arguments should not save the articles, as the content can be userfied rather than left in article space until such time as the editors have time to bring it into compliance. The only other argument for keeping the articles, that the articles are part of an overall approach to the series and that having the massive plot articles is better than having individual articles on every episode of the soap opera, not only puts forth a dilemma that doesn't exist (there does not appear to be any interest in writing individual articles for each episode) and ignores the black and white statement of WP:PLOT which specifies that a plot summary may be appropriate as part of an overview of the work but not as a separate article. The "overall approach" argument has been soundly rejected for separate plot summary articles for everything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Les Miserables to All My Children and the argument is no better here. Closing admin, while acknowledging that AFD is not a vote count, still did a bit of vote counting but also stated that editing could take care of policy concerns. I strongly disagree and, given that the strongest advocate of keeping the articles is not editing the existing articles but is instead starting over from scratch, the policy concern of WP:PLOT is not overcome by the possibility of editing (which is not being done). The necessary work was not done to save the articles, the policy concerns override the majority and the keep arguments do not answer the blatant policy violations. Otto4711 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted by User:Philippe with no reason given in the deletion log. After discussing it on his talk page it seems that he deleted it because he felt it wasn't notable or didn't assert notability, but this isn't a valid reason to delete an article about a music album; csd a7 doesn't cover albums. P4k 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 can't see why this was deleted. There's no explanation in the deletion log, I can't find an AFD, and the deleting admin has retired. What little of its content I can see looks legit. Father Goose 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 admit this wasn't notable a year ago, but it is now, and it is easy to cite sources for it as well. It's been a year, and now it's been on MSNBC News. Infact, everyone I know on the internet has heard of it. It's even been in a New York Times article recently. Duarm3300 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
MENTIONED IN CHILEAN NEWSPAPER, AMONG OTHERS
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
SEE WP:MUSIC #6
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 believe the AfD discussion was misinterpreted. Consensus in the discussion was to keep or merge, not for delete. When asked for clarification on reason for delete, Admin referred to deletion summary which stated "odd and not really needed," which I believe to be an improper rationale for deletion as per Wikipedia official policy. Attempted to resolve/discuss with admin, who would not engage in discussion and recommended WPDRV. LACameraman 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 believe that notability was established through the four sources provided (4th source was a print article from The Hindu, but isn't linked to in the AFD page). Would also like to say that the cache doesn't reflect the article after I trimmed it down to be a stub Corpx 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: 1. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic. 2. The image is of a low resolution. 3. Since one members of the band are now incarcerated, it is not possible to replace the image with a new free alternative. 4. Use of this promotional image does not detract from the financial viability of it. Blackdragon6 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
AfD was closed as no consensus, but the arguments in favor of deletion appear to have outweighed those in favor of keeping not just in number but in cogency and reference to guidelines. The close was certainly a possible reading of the discussion; nevertheless, it seems to me to have been a mistaken reading. Deor 13:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.
It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism.Bsregistration 20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely no rationale was provided for the deletion and the discussion page was flooded with multiple comments from Dennis the Tiger sockpuppets like Starblind who seem to be fascinated with conspiracy theories. The article was properly sourced with articles and papers. Again the content of the pro-deletion crowd is little more than politically-motivated and there has not been a single refutation of any specific item on the page or any source used. The open admission that the page wasn't even read and that conspiracy theorists like Mongo were brought in to shut it down even though it is firm argument for reinstating the page.Bsregistration 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You probably didn't notice that wikipedia isn't an advertising service, either.
Here's open admission that the page was deleted without even being read and that other editors were brought to the page for strictly political reasons. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to be edited?
But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465 Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448 A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was of reasonable quality and it is not original research - there is information about the subject around. I feel it deserves an AfD vote, rather than a speedy delete, at least. – drw25 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Apart from the merits of the various arguments that have been presented, there is the question of concensus. There seems to be a very strange sort of logic at work here. If anything is clear about the CFD discussion, it is that there was no real concensus. Radiant certainly didn't use that term. After carefully scrutinizing the discussion, the results fall into four categories: 2 supported renaming as per nom; 3 simply opposed the nom; 3-1/2 called for renaming, but not per nom; and only 3-1/2 out of the 12 editors called for deletion. (The two 1/2s are User:Otto). Which means that 8-1/2 of the 12 editors did not ask for deletion. To call that a "concensus for deletion" is standing logic on its head. If anything, there was a consensus not to delete. Lacking anything even approaching such a concensus, the correct decision should have been to retain the category, and probably to modify the name. (And I would, as I suggested, spell out the definition of the category on its page.) Cgingold 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn as it was deleted after 48 hours, despite that the only detailed comment was for "weak keep". -- User:Docu
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted by User:ESkog for "failing WP:NFCC and so tagged for over 7 days". Not only was this not brought to my attention earlier, but I don't see how it fails WP:NFCC. It was a screenshot of Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter from Manhunter. As it is of a fictional character, it has no free equivalent. It won't harm the sales of the film. It had minimal use and was only used in two articles. It was low resolution. And so forth, and so on. If it had lacked a fair use disclaimer, I could have very easily given it one. Thus, I am asking that it be undeleted. CyberGhostface 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was speedy deleted with the rationale that it would probably attract WP:BLP violations. However, I did not see any reason for the page to be speedy deleted (maybe AFD'ed or certain parts removed). Therefore I feel it should be undeleted and listed on AFD. ugen64 16:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This category, along with the nine below, was deleted by Radiant! on 19 July 2007. The result of the discussion was 4 Keep, 3 Delete and that includes the nominator's vote. Radiant! overruled the votes of those editors who said the cats were useful for navigation, saying it wasn't "a really strong argument". Surely this is personal POV? User:Otto4711, who nominated the cats for deletion, seems to be systematically deleting categories for what he calls "Eponymous musicians", this is his right but I think administrators should rule on nominations based on the votes and not whether similar pages have been deleted in the past as I feel has happened in this case. Philip Stevens 08:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted because the admin thinks it doesn't meet the notability criteria. I've tried to explain that it's quite known and that there was still a lot of things to add to the page but after my last reply he didn't reply again. TizianoF 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Currently redirects to his group, Boyz n da Hood. Now I think Big Gee (rapper) and Duke (rapper) should redirect, as they have little to no notability outside the group. Zoe, however, has a solo single out, called "Hood Nigga" which has peaked at #36 on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart (under its amended name, "Hood Figga"), and it is the first single from his upcoming album called "Welcome to the Zoo," set for release on September 25, 2007 on Block Entertainment/Bad Boy South. Not to mention he has collaborated with Yung Joc on his single "Coffee Shop (song)." The Billboard charting is very notable, so my choice is Unmerge and Unprotect, so a quality article can be written. Tom Danson 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It was deleted several times because Soulja Boy wasn't notable yet. However, he has since become notable by signing a major deal with ColliPark Music (Ying Yang Twins' former label)/Interscope Records-do I even need to tell you why Interscope is notable? Plus, his new single Crank That (Soulja Boy), has debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at #47 (pretty high debut if you ask me). Undelete, so I may clean it up and put some notable facts in there. Tom Danson 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page is being protected starting from Feb 2007, with the reason "game not yet announced" (because spammers kept on creating this article). But now, as Koei has announced the game will be released in late autumn 2007, can we restore this page now?Lugiadoom 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted for "being spam". I (writer of this article) am not related to the product's developer, and there was no advertising there; it was merely a listing of the currently available info. Also, given the developer's past releases, it is definitely notable. Ergo, it was as valid as any article about games currently under developement. Stormwatch 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jewish American humor is not a trivial, random, or coincidental intersection. It is a recognized genre of comedy with distinct stylistic elements. WP:OC states: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article." The topic of Jewish-American humor has its own section in the Jewish_humor page. And a google scholar search for "jewish american humor" brings up multiple hits discussing the topic. I think these facts were completely disregarded in the initial discussion. Osbojos 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted out from under me. Why? It's not well edited, but it is informative. 206.135.228.66 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Dunhill_International_List_Company Would like to be contacted as to why this page was taken down. You have pages for other companies. You additionally have pages for the DMA as well as a page on Mailing Lists- so the content should not be an issue. This company is 70-yrs old and is one of the pioneers in its industry. We are happy to add content if the reason was that it was too short. but since we were not given a reason as to why this was deleted we can do nothing to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunhilljoe (talk • contribs) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 think this needs a review; I feel that the closing admin did not properly weighed the arguments of deleting side and the counterarguments, which by and large fall in the field of WP:ATA. As we all know, AfD is not a majority vote and blah blah blah. Being in the "deletion camp", I'll skip the pro-deletion arguments, based on policy (chiefly WP:SYN), well presented by the nominator, user:The Behnam, and supported at length by some other editors, myself and try to present the analysis of "keep"ers. So, what we have:
Since WP:LOOKHOWMANYSOURCES above is a red links with perhaps non-obvious meaning, let me explain: argument relies on the number of sources in the article, without answering what are those sources about (none is devoted to the topic, Anti-Iranian sentiment, but largely present quote mining and/or OR "quote picking" for the purpose of WP:SYN).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reason for deletion was not having played for professional club, today Dalton signed a contract with Carlisle United[55] so now the orginal reason for deletion is inaccurate Kingjamie 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus not followed and closing admin did not follow the argument Aboutmovies 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Overturn: The question posed in this nomination is simply this: was consensus reached in the original discussion, as Kbdank has claimed? While consensus cannot be determined by majority vote, it also cannot be determined merely by what appears more compelling to the closing admin. The closing should be overturned; there was no consensus whatsoever. -Pete 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural request. There is now mounting evidence that the person who nominated this article for deletion, NobutoraTakeda (talk · contribs · logs), is a sockpuppet of indefblocked user SanchiTachi (talk · contribs). Since he thus had no right to even contribute, it's only fair that this article be relisted for a legitimate discussion. Blueboy96 23:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 truth in the article spake of men who impregnated dozens of women. There was no "hoax" in the article. Velocicaptor 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry, but I don't see an autograph book for people with single letter user names to be "useless crud/trolling" (the deletion summary) especially when the deletion discussion showed no consensus to delete and most of the delete comments were from people who want it deleted simply because they cannot put their name on the page. I am never going to put my name on most of the pages in other people's user space. The whole thing stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore the DRV was open for only a little under 48 hours, surely not enough time for consensus to be reached. Freakofnurture also deleted User:R/SL without a deletion summary, even though it was not part of the DRV and even if the group page were deleted, lots of people have nifty little icons on their user pages. (WP:ROUGE anyone?)-N 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Following a report on WP:BLP/N, I decided to delete this article. It is about a Norwegian teenager running for russ president who stripped to get votes and the video ended up on the internet. Here's an English language news article. I figured that a naked internet video was insufficient to sustain a Wikipedia biography and that information about her stunt could always be added to the russ article. I'm opening a discussion here to review my decision in case there are any objections. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page and dozens of subcategories containing hundreds of articles were deleted after a sparse vote that ended at 2 Keep - 2 Delete. The determination was that the vote totals did not represent the consensus of reasonable arguments and a deletion decision was rendered. The arguments to keep were
The arguments to delete were
As the director of WP:CHICAGO categories by location such as Category:Films shot in Chicago are an important management tool. We use a bot to roam categories to identify newly created articles, to monitor for classification promotions etc. When we lose categories we are less able to improve the encyclopedia. Chicagoans are more likely to be able to contribute certain types of details to articles on films shot in Chicago than non-Chicagoans. I have already contributed based on bot identification to The Dark Knight (film) and Batman Begins. I was able to improve the encyclopedia because the bot was able to point me to these articles in categories related to Chicago. If other regions begin to manage their domain using bots as is very convenient to do we need categories by location to do so effectively. You can review the CfD discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Alledged neologisms are not a valid reason for speedy delete, as was stated here [58]. See policy Wikipedia:Speedy_delete#Non-criteria. Reason given in the deletion log [59] "no real content" is not valid either, as it had basic information with references and was tagged as an article stub, as per the guide Wikipedia:Stub. The article should have been given a proper AfD for wider discussion. Martintg 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
| ||||||
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Active IfD ignored.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
restore Afcyrus 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) --> Here is a point by point reason why I'm asking for the article, Cyrus Robinson, that was deleted to be re-established. A former co-worker asked me if I minded her creating a Wikipedia article about me and my work/contribution to the field of digital forensics and the United States Air Force. I said no and agreed to help her out by beginning an article to highlight my early life/etc (because she did not yet have an editor account). This was my first article, and I did a very poor job (and the information was irrelevant to my contribution to digital forensics and the Air Force (b/c I was just starting off my background info). The article was tagged for speedy deletion, and so realizing that I had messed up by beginning an article on myself anyway I blanked the page. Later that evening the associate who wanted to create the article did so, and did a very professional and well cited job. Without ever viewing the content of the article, Shell deleted the article (she deletes about 3/minute, clearly not enough time to actually review the article and its sources. I along with other editors interested in the article tried reasoning with Shell on her discussion page, but she acted as though she was afraid to have her authority questioned. She claims to be an "inclusionist" and to practice "good faith", but a review of her discussion page shows that any time a person objects to her deletions without any review, she pretty much tells the user that she will not change her position. Please take the time to read the entire list of false reasonings for deletion and my rebuttal to each of them. Thanks. Shell made FALSE and unfounded allegations against me. She accused me of having friends post on my behalf. First off, one is a former co-worker (not a friend) who ASKED ME if I minded her posting an article on me and my work (Imnotfamous). The other (Spartas) I do consider a friend, but he is also a computer programmer/computer specialist who understands the relevance of the article. The Biography starter guide said do not have a best friend post an article about you. He is not my best friend, and he did not post the article, but he did defend the article at his own discretion. I, along with Spartas and Imnotfamous, gave specific rationale as to why the article should not be deleted. She deleted it just for the sake of not wanting to be proven wrong which is evidenced by her lack of response to my rebuttals as well as failing to allowing time for argument against deletion on the talk page for the article. She did NOT assume good faith. I read the WP:BIO page and specifically addressed every complaint she listed. You addressed NONE of mine. Her complaints and my responses: Shell claims that I, the subject of an article written by another editor, am not considered notable.
The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm) The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)
Shell claims that military awards cannot be listed as awards in the military awards infobox. On General T. Michael Moseley's WP article he has two awards listed, both military awards (you said mine were not eligible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Michael_Moseley . The same is true of General John Jumper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Jumper . According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_person_infobox the decorations should be "any notable awards or decorations the person received." Apparently, the editor for the article about me thought my listed awards were notable.
Shell constantly refers to WP:BIO without detailing specific areas where the article failed to meet criteria for posting. However, Shell did tell me that I am not well known enough to have an article posted about me. I may not be famous, but I feel that I am at least notable in the field of digital forensics. According to WP:NPF (People who are relatively unknown) Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. It has been shown that while I may not be well known to the entire populous, I am at the very least, notable in my field. Shell made the comment "A forum is not a credible biography." Shell obviously did not even check the links that I listed. I did not list a forum as my credible biography. The name of the company that organizes many DoD and government conferences is Technology Forums (it is not a forum-website). Further, Shell made the rather subjective (and uninformed) comment that having briefed at one conference of 700 attendees does not make me well known within my field. This is one of the and most well known conferences in the digital forensic community. That, along with the release of the DCCI Cyber Files which includes over 10 publications authored by myself to every attendee of the conference makes me both published and well known within the digital forensics community.
Shell made the comment that sources for the Cyrus Robinson article are self-published. I would refer Shell to Self-publishing which makes no mention of employers or academic institutions not being able to publish work used as a source. As a member of the USAF I am not capable of registering a website or paying for publication of my work-related studies. Almost every legitimate research publication is published by a government source or a source in academia. In those cases the studies are almost always authored by either faculty, students, or staff of those institutions. This is NOT self publication as is outlined at the bottom of WP:BIO. WP:BIO states that if someone purchases a website or pays to have a book published and self-labels as an "expert" is self-publication. For instance, Ron Rivest is a professor at MIT. He has two articles as bibliographical reference. Both are published through MIT Press (understandably). Self-publication is when a person has something published yourself. I never requested that the Air Force publish my work. They do so at their own discretion. Where would military personnel or academic sources publish other than through their respective institution?
Shell did not read articles before she delete them, as is evidenced by your serial deletion highlighted in your contributions site (despite her personal claim to be an "inclusionist". Shell sometimes deletes 3 per minute. Further, Shell does not allow ample time for discussion and debate on either the site's talk page or the debate discussion site. Finally, the limited time that is allowed for debate Shell did not read or take into consideration at all. This seems to be a case of someone with authority not accepting it when their authority or stance is questioned. Look up your discussion page. It is full of people with claims similar to mine that you just disregard. In the end, you always claim you are right...end of story.
Having drafted this point-by-point list of rebuttals full of sources and examples (from WP articles, policies, and guidelines), I ask that Cyrus Robinson be undeleted. I hope that the Wikipedia community is able to solve this unfair deletion with fairness and without elitism.Afcyrus 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Original and noteworthy accomplishment in a specific field of study is notable.Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Afcyrus 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There were two successive AfD's for this article. Both had a delete outcome, even though the original reasons to nominate the article (WP:NN and WP:RS) were refuted (i.e. reliable sources had been added). Consequently the people who voted delete on the second AfD gave "unencyclopedic" as their reason (WP:UNENCYC); but failing to provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy that substantiated their reasoning. Hence, in my opinion, there was no valid reason to delete the article, nor a consensus. (NOTE: there were two AfD's, the first and second) — Slaapwel 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
So, out of three sources, we get one that is reliable. WP:WEB states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Fails that, I think. Sr13 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Cox is a major, albeit privately held company. This is one of their products, whose competitors include other review websites such as Yelp, InsiderPages, CitySearch, etc., all of whom have Wikipedia entries. Kudzu.com has plenty of reliable published sources to cite. I see their billboards and hear their ads all of the time, and they just surpassed 100,000 user reviews of local businesses. Edmur 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no discussion prior to either of the first two deletions. There were many references to outside, independant sources (8 in total, though I can easily submit 100), and the primary purpose of the article was not advertisment, but of explaining the pioneering position of Fargoth in the intellectual property relations between the online proffessional fantasy artist community and the online worldbuilding community. Fargoth itself set up the relationship and the standard that John Howe still has to today regarding intellectual property and the spreading of art, which has trickled down to become the standard for internet artists. For this reason, I refute the claims of advertisement and unimportance. Secondly, I apologize to the admin I cursed at, and for any mistakes I may have made in the placing of this complaint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talk • contribs)
I guess should say Undelete as well, but I would ask for the whole article to be returned. I believe this to be fair because the FWBP is probably one of the best fantasy conworlds out there, almost certainly with the largest information base. It is notable, if only for that reason. I mean, if micropenises (where did I get that one? hmm...) or Bohemia Manor High School warrant an article then certainly one of the largest conworlding establishments in the world does as well? Cronos2546 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted citing licensing concerns [78], although no specific licensing objection had been raised (image was pd-self, a photograph), and appeared to have sourcing information attached to it. (Policy does not seem entirely clear on whether a pd-self photograph needs any additional discussion of the source, or whether that is already implicit in pd-self template.) This had previously been up for IFD, and passed as a strong keep. Now it looks like censorship when it is deleted without discussion in this way. Silly rabbit 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was put up for Speedy Deletion. However when a "hang on" tag was added, and indeed some additional material added in response to the claim that (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) Extra material was ignored, no discussion ensued and then when the page was recreated it was subject to page protection. What is actually going on here? It is Festival which has taken many forms over the last twenty years.I thought the idea was that the matter should be discussed before adminstrators took such action?Harrypotter 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that exactly what I was setting out to do when the page got deleted. I think the problem here was that the deletion was so swift. In fact it was only possible to restore not even half the material before the second ultra-swift deletion. And this was after hang on had been put on the first time. Sometimes it is a good idea to let it stand for a week to allow the work to be done, and maybe for one or two other people to notice it as it get links to several other pages. As the vent was a recurrent phenomena - in that the very nature of plagiarism means that those who did so in 2006 were copying people back in the eigthies, it is not so much a single event but a multiple event (parallelling the Multiple-use names with which it associated (e.g. Karen Eliot)Harrypotter 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article not a copyright violation - see discussion here Roxithro 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"You have already indicated that you think such behavior is okay". I most certainly have not! But making such a statement does indicate even more confused thinking on your part. As I said before, the concept of copyright is poorly defined and understood in both the legal world and amongst the editors of Wikipedia and consensus does not imply being correct. "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art." -- US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Roxithro 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Not informative Borisu 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I have created a psychological article stub with included short definition of a well known phenomenon in psychology. And even refrenced the scientific sources. (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/224). User Jaranda deleted it instantly, Any attempt to contact the user failed. I think it is the matter of wikipedia that articles are growing over time. They cannot be immediately complete on their first revision. Still the article was informative enough to explain the term.
The only content was the "In psychology, the effect of an individual preserving his/her attitude even when he/she is presented with facts that contradict it" a link, and some tags, which I deleted as A1, I undeleted it but I recommend AFD. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This image was originally deleted because there were several "free" alternatives at commons. All three others images have now been deleted as improperly licensed, and probably copyvios. As such, the basis for deletion no longer applies. The Evil Spartan 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 wanted to create this article and I have seen that it has been speedy-deleted twice because of being a non-notable company. Obviously I do not know the quality of those two deleted articles but I do not think they deserve to be speedy-deleted. Bicing is not a company but a service of Barcelona City council (and thus it is payed with my taxes) in order to have an amount of public bicycles and use them as an ecologist transport. Other cities such as Paris with Vélib' have copied the system. SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[82] older official site in english(not updated anymore) [83] (origibnal bicing page in german now merged into the too general term of bike rental 62.57.7.180 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) stefanbcn PS quote:I don't see any potential for expansion in articles about a service which is one month (or a few months) old, yes there is quite a lot of potential, as this is social phenomen as well, with 80.000 having paid so far within a short time the yearly fee, the german article as well names all the companies offering these services so there is no advertising danger signed stefanbcn
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 article is about translator of new bestselling Bible translation The Apostles' Bible. It is important to know who and what is author of Bible translation. The article does not fit condition for speedy deletion at all. This person is widely known in Christian and widely searchable by Google.Tomakiv 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) By the same administrator User:NawlinWiki, who deleted this article is proposed to delete The Apostles' Bible.
He did not translate the Apostle's Bible. According to his own posted bio at [84], he is "http://www.apostlesbible.com/bio.pdf" "In the works is a fresh new revision of The Apostles’ Bible " and also he has made a previous translation, [self-published] "by Author House, and are very popular, mostly by word of mouth." Normally, a Bible translator would be notable, as they are generally distinguished scholars, with extensive other published work & academic and church positions of great prominence, and so on. He is however "mostly self-taught". [85] is in my opinion a RS, and lists his edition as "a light revision". DGG (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wow, I'm speechless. Not only there was no consensus to delete on AfD, but the reasoning for the closure is just ridiculous. I quote, "there is insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to merit inclusion". Yeah, right. Apparently User:Ck_lostsword was too lazy to read the article in question. I quote:
(to see the references, look at the deleted edits). I hereby nominate this for the most ridiculous AfD closure of the year 2007. Grue 07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 close. This was not a one sided debate and this is completely out of process. Crossmr 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Again this was not a one sided debate, out of process close, these were both ongoing debates. Crossmr 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 AfD lacked informed comments; the claim was lack of notability, yet the font is heavily used by Wikipedia itself, including MediaWiki:Common.css. (Besides the article links, we also have a number of template links.) A web search for 'Code2000 font' returns tens of thousands of hits, most recommending this font for its broad Unicode coverage and liberal availability. It is unparalleled for its coverage of characters used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics project, and we recommend it routinely as a solution for "missing character" glyphs. The deleting admin (Sr13 (talk · contribs)) has been informed, but prefers DRV. --KSmrqT 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Significance, relevance, lack of discussion The article was tagged for speedy deletion, I responded promptly with a NotSoFast tag, there was no substantive discussion on the merits. There is talk on My page. I have since determined that the firm is listed on the NYSE symbol GHL, performed over $100 Billion of M & A work, and revenues of over $300 Million. Admittedly, all of these facts were not in the original article, but I don't want to recreate the article without getting some administrative oversight. Knowsetfree 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |