Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I have no idea why this image was deleted let alone even brought up for deletion. Pretty much all our boxing, MMA, pro wrestling, etc pay-per view articles use the official poster as the main image. It has the correct fair use and it's not being used for any other article but Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe. I really don't see what the problem is. Beast from da East (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted three times about two years ago and salted (why permanently, I don't know, except insofar as "forever" seems to be the default salt decision; I wish the culture would change about this). It concerned a band which had released one album. This group has released a second album, which, like the previous one, reached an American album chart, and the band has been the subject of multiple third-party reviews in the wake of the new release (e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7]; the band was also featured in the April edition of Alternative Press, which is a major-market paper publication I have access to). In the wake of new sourcing and claims to notability per WP:MUSIC for this subject, can this title please be Unsalted? Chubbles (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article describes two original films, Eega and Naan Ee. The infobox picture should therefore represent both films as one film poster doesn't represent both films. Both pictures represent the article, while one alone would mislead readers that there is only one original film in Telugu language (Eega). It should be very clear by seeing the infobox image alone that there is a second film (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox). Per WP:NFG there is an exemption for non-free montages for special cases like this. The merging of two separate articles became necessary only after it was observed that the content was very similar, else there would have been separate articles with separate pictures. Experts on the subject support a merged poster at the talkpage: Talk:Eega#Two_films.2C_two_different_posters. Previously merging the articles was decided here: Talk:Naan Ee. Dravidian Hero 12:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Admin asked for review Larsonrick25 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC) It appears a mistake was made by deleting the Mister Saint Laurent entry. The page deleted was not a recreation of the pulled page from 2008, but was mistakenly assumed as such. I've helped monitor the page the last few years as there'd been some controversy, but it was ultimately decided by the appropriate Wikipedia authority figures that the new page was appropriate and should remain. So it would be a mistake to pull the page based on a different entry that was pulled five years ago. That entry was inappropriately created by the subject. Independent editors years later created a properly sourced page, which is the one mistakenly deleted this week. There had already been a discussion over whether to delete the page and the consensus was to keep it. I think the admin was just doing some routine house keeping and mistakenly assumed it was the same page from 2008. I talked to the admin and he told me to start a talk here. Sorry if I don't have this whole process correct. If there's already been a discussion and it's decided a page should not be deleted, I don't think it should suddenly vanish out of the blue years later. I think the admin simply made an error and once the facts are considered, I believe the page should be restored. I think it was a simple miscommunication.
But the page was not sufficiently identical and was not unimproved. The page was completely different from the 2008 deleted page and vastly improved. It was simply a housekeeping error on the part of the admin. He deleted the page without warning simply because he noticed there had been a deleted article five years earlier with the same name. Even a quick examination of the two articles would show the new article was not identical in any way, was tremendously improved, and had existed for years with proper citations and any discussion of deletion was ultimately denied. This page did not qualify for a G4 speedy deletion nor was there any reason for any deletion whatsoever. The admin had no previous history with this article and there had been no recent issue calling for admin intervention. It appears the admin was simply in good faith looking to help clean up Wikipedia, but with over 100,000 edits, he's only human and simply made a mistake with this deletion. When the mistake was brought to his attention, it was clear he wasn't familiar with the article at all and asked for there to be further discussion here. If the article were to be temporarily restored, we'd be able to compare it to the 2008 article as well as look at its talk page. You will see clearly this deletion was a mistake, not to mention it did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The article was not substantially identical to the deleted version, therefore it is to be excluded from G4 speedy deletion according to Wikipedia policy. I'd be happy to help clarify any further confusion, but I'm unable to answer your questions at this point as the page was removed without warning and I have no access to the talk page. Like I said, even a brief overview of the article if it were temporarily restored would show it was not the same article deleted in 2008. The admin simply made an honest mistake and it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't shoot the messenger. I noticed a page had been mistakenly deleted. I contacted the admin and the admin asked that it be addressed here. I apologize again if I've made in mistakes in protocol. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
After this AFD resulted in a decision of "keep", someone decided to challenge the decision by opening a new AFD, rather than by coming here. I've closed the AFD procedurally in favor of coming here. The nominator's rationale is as follows. I have no opinion on the matter, so I'm neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I completely realize that this article was recently taken to AfD. Heck, I realize that I voted Keep in that AfD. However, after comments by others about the sources, i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously. And what I have found does seem to indicate a violation of WP:SIGCOV here, where the source coverage is extremely trivial. While this was occasionally mentioned in the previous AfD, it does not appear to have been properly represented and that is why I am opening this new discussion. I will now go through the sources in the article to show what I mean. This source is used to reference the Bicholim conflict hoax material, of which on Wikipediocracy it states, "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."" That is the entirety of the mention of Wikipediocracy within the article, clearly trivial. This is a recent source about the Qworty incident. on Wikipediocracy, it states, "The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention, he writes, when members of Wikipediocracy, a site that details instances of Wikipedian fakery and bias, contacted him." Also a trivial mention, not even counting that it is referencing information from a different news article. This article could actually be an issue of original research being used in the Wikipediocracy article. At the bottom of it, it states "H/T Wikipediocracy", with that being a link to a tweet by the Wikipediocracy Twitter that itself just links to two diff changes in a Wikipedia article. H/T generally means "Heard through" on Twitter, but that is certainly not enough information to back up the sentence currently in the Wikipediocracy article that it is attached to. This isn't even a real mention of the site at all. This article is about somewhat recent discussions with Jimbo about Kazakh Wikipedia. Its comments on Wikipediocracy amount to, "Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy, an external forum whose members are often harshly critical of Wikimedia's management." This is, again, a trivial mention, and really, from what the rest of the article says, is a better reference to be used on Andreas than Wikipediocracy. This source is about Gibraltarpedia. About Wikipediocracy, it states, "Kolbe wrote on Wikipediocracy, a site often critical of Wikimedia’s top brass." Again, this article has a fair amount to say on Andreas, but only half a sentence on Wikipediocracy. Even more trivial than trivial. This source I could go on about its reliability, with it being The Register and about its author, Andrew Orlowski, but I have no need to. Because this article makes absolutely no mention of Wikipediocracy at all (other than in a screenshot of a Wikipedia conversation). Honestly, I have no idea why this source is in the article, other than for POV pushing. This source, likewise, has no mention of Wikipediocracy and is merely being used to source the statement "co-founder of Wikipedia" for Larry Sanger, which doesn't really seem necessary, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This source, like the previous, confers no notability to Wikipediocracy, not even through a trivial mention. Now i'll go back to the source that I skipped and saved for last here, because it is the one we have to focus on, that offers slightly more to the subject. However, it is about the recent Qworty incident and is the only source of any real length on Wikipediocracy, so we also have to bring up the question on whether this single event adds much by itself. The article that I am referring to is this one. Now you can read it yourself and it certainly has a lot of references to Wikipediocracy and the information the writer was given by members there. However, it also says pretty much nothing about the site itself. Really, other than the mentions of their involvement in giving this Wikipedia information to the author, the article has nothing to say about the Wikipediocracy site itself. And that's it, in a fair bit of length. If there was a single source that discussed the site in any length, even a paragraph, then this might be a different discussion. If there was anything about the site's foundings, its origins, even more about its members. But there's nothing. There are references to the site and that's all. And as is often noted in AfD discussions, a bunch of trivial mentions don't add up to much. Trivial mentions are still trivial. And, in most cases, these are even worse than trivial. Usually what we call "trivial mentions" have at least two sentences or something on a subject, but these are, apparently, the most trivial among the trivial. I see no real argument for notability here, once you actually take a look at the sources. SilverserenC 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Endorse. The next appropriate forum at which to shop would be St. Jude's. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This page (about me, but not originally written by me) was deleted for being unsourced. I've prepared a sourced version (to the best of my ability) here: User:Larrycaptain/ Lawrence Kaptein that I believe complies with the sourcing and notability guidelines. I'd be grateful for input and would like to have the deletion overturned and my draft (or another revised version) reinstated. The original article was brought to my attention by a graduate student doing research on the multicultural choral music movement in the US - an important focus of my professional work. 70.151.3.10 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Significant new information has come to light since deletion that would justify reinstating the deleted page. Version before merge. Historical discussion from Oct 2012 with closer MBisanz. There exists an amount of online news coverage, and the report has clearly been noted by adjoining Council authorities, residents, pressure groups, etc. The report may apparently be not overwhelmingly newsworthy (although I still maintain that the specialist press will have covered it in some depth), but IMO that doesn't mean it's not notable or is insignificant. Reinstating the article would make it easier for others (e.g. those with access to offline sources) to improve it and hence the encyclopedia. I realise that I could simply be bold (and that consensus can change) but because this may still be a borderline case I'm seeking approval here before doing reinstatement. Thanks for reading. References
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Resorces were deleted and Author was given 10 days. Supplemental sources were provided within 1 day and deleted without any verification then summarily deleted by japaingirl. Japaingirl is now attacking the Film page "the Cloth" even though it meets the criteria. This was a biased attack and the page Lassiter Holmes could have been paired down to remove any "self promotion," but japaingril set it to delete immediately without working with the author. |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Notability of the actress (WP:ENT) has increased considerably, with 4 more movies and a TV series (IMDB). At the time of the previous deletion discussions in 2008/09 she had only one major appearance: Transporter 3, to where the page currently redirects. Therefore I recommend undeletion/unprotection to recreate the page. Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Request the article be undeleted as there are a number of reasons as to why it is notable. The club is one of the largest, especially in terms of teams, in the UK.[1] Both the men's and women's 1st XI play in the England Hockey League and so are playing at the top level in the country, with the men's 1st XI narrowly missing out on promotion to the Premier League this season just gone. The club is also home to a few players who are notable on the international hockey scene, particularly Barry Middleton, who has appeared on TV at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. [2] [3] Is it not quite notable to have such a player as a member of the club? It demonstrates the intent to compete in the Premier League, which is quite notable in its field (being the home of many international hockey players).
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The closing admin declared no consensus as editors had claimed ONEEVENT did not apply, however a simple Google news search shows he is known for this one single event, getting shived in prison, as such those claiming ONEEVENT does not apply failed to meet the WP:BURDEN of showing how he is otherwise known. I have discussed this with the closing admin and he has said to bring it here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was nominated for deletion and received what seems to me to be a rather perfunctory and not particularly policy-based discussion which resulted in a keep outcome since nobody but the nominator voted to delete the page. It has since been brought up again, but one editor (who also participated in the original discussion) is objecting on the grounds that the new discussion is too soon after the last one. I don't see overturning the previous outcome, but I would like ratification that the present discussion be allowed to continue. There has already been considerably more discussion this time around, and of higher quality WRT policy; I don't see the need for further delay. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was speedily deleted as promotional. The man is obviously notable. The article should be fixed instead of being wiped out along with its history. Here's one of many articles on the subject [9]. At the very least a deletion discussion at the appropriate venue should have taken place. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was speedy deleted - A7, G11 - by admin RHaworth (talk). I don't know if I've entered the xfd_page info correctly - was it the discussion page of the deleter or the deletion discussion itself I was supposed to reference? It was unclear. Anyway, I think this page has been overzealously deleted, and the reasons for deletion seem to have shifted after I made a case against A7/G11. I discussed the matter with the deleting individual who helpfully suggested I lodge a deletion review, which I am now doing, hopefully correctly. Coopeteer (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The AfD was closed by its own nominator, after less than four hours, with only three supporters. I attempted to raise this at User talk:MZMcBride#Dominic McDevitt-Parks, but the closing admin stated that "deletion review would be a waste of time". The article should be restored; and the AfD allowed to run its course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
No reason for the deletion decision was given in the closure, and it seems to be based on either vote counting or the overarching WP:NSPORTS "needs to play at a fully pro level" guideline, rather than per the sport specific notability guideline. The article originator has attempted to contact the closing admin for clarification, but no response to his query has been made. The-Pope (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Being the president a Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry (DCCI), which is a large organization bearing 10000+ business organizations in Bangladesh & contributing to entire economic development of the nation, Mr. Sabur Khan may be counted as a notable person. Alam5131 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
To move the well-sourced notable article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen there. Launchballer 12:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
(Knowing in advance that overturning a 'no consensus' decision is a tough sell, but here goes...) It seemed that the 'keep' comments in AFD discussion all pertained to sources about a completely different day, the No Pants Subway Ride, a different event on a different date than No Pants Day. The confusion in sourcing seemed to be the motivator behind the keep proponents. Accounting for that, the balance looks like it leans more to deletion than no consensus. The closing admin suggested merging the two articles. That's a reasonable view, provided both topics are notable, but that isn't the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This band is one of Europe's current biggest extreme metal bands and is only getting bigger by the day. They have signed with Metal Blade Records which is one huge record label, and they're playing with bands such as Guns'n'Roses, Marilyn Manson, Marduk, Opeth or Satyricon in huge international metal festivals and tours. Even though it's a pretty new band which started getting famous with the launch of their first album in 2009, they have already become one really famous band within their genre. It seems like the article got deleted some time ago and the reason given seems to be "Non-notable band", well that reason is beyond obsolete now because this band has turned very notable and keeps turning more notable each day. Eddie1984 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion was incorrectly closed as keep instead of being relisted. There were four comments in this discussion. 1 delete, 3 keep. The delete cited standard policies about notability and said that the individual didn't meet them. Noone addressed these concerns specifically. The first keep voter, Dricherby pointed at a location where there could be significant coverage, but he didn't have access to the reviews and nor did anyone else. The other sources highlighted were unreliable. The second keep voter, Phaedrus7, gave a reason so poor that Dricherby helped show it to be invalid. The third keep was also invalid as it stated that they would have voted delete but there was previous AfDs and survival shows notability. Somehow this was closed as keep, rather than as a relist or similar. The closing admin gave this reason: [10]. Here was the reasoning:
Dricherby agrees that the sources that he was mentioned in where not reliable, and I countered the use of The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe which does not give significant coverage to Talbott. None of us had access to the sources which LFaraone claims has critical commentary. Phaedrus7 did not build upon Dricherby's arguments since Dricherby rejected them. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This has incorrectly been closed as no-consensus because the closing admin has given undue weight to non-policy based keep arguments that Ambassadors should be inherantly notable. There is no policy anywhere on the project to show a consensus to support this argument. The relevant guideline WP:DIPLOMAT states clearly inter alia ... Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required. An on-going RFC [12] clearly has no-consensus to support the inherantly notable argument. The delete side on the other side put forward policy based arguments concerning lack of depth in sourcing and failure to meet GNG. Basically, this is a BLP without proper sourcing and the project consensus is to delete these articles. Normally I would leave a no-consensus close to respect the closing admin's discretion but this closure is being cited as a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susumu_Shibata and therefore has the risk of enabling further non-policy compliant closes. WP:CONSENSUS is clear that we should have a rough consensus based on weighing arguments against consensus. By giving equal weight to the non-policy based keep arguments, the closing admin has reached the wrong outcome. I ask DRV to fix that by overturning the close to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was speedy kept by a non-admin before seven days (within an hour of nomination); in addition, a majority of votes came from new users (not to sound bitey or anything, but some of these votes are WP:ATA &c, and few are supported by policy. For example:
Comment: There was a comment that there must be a policy - we cited all kinds of policy, but here is an instructive essay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Prince of Peas (talk · contribs) reposted this by copy-and-pasting it into mainspace from the sandbox Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where it was sent after AfD. No substantial content changes between the AFD version and the reposted version (order of men and women were switched, column format was changed). As this has been reposted without a new discussion on its existence, I've posted this DRV to discuss the existence of the article that was reposted without new AFD overturning the old one, since the content is the same. If this is kept, the edit history needs to be fixed, as it exists in the sandboxed version. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Clearly does not fit within any CSD category. The only one that even comes close is G4, but I assure you that I personally wrote the entire article, complete with large number of sources culled from all over the web, many (some? I can't see the page now so I'm not sure) of which were not around five years ago. Let me quote from G4: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"... Except by astounding coincidence I cannot fathom this being a substantially identical page. I'm fairly comfortable with WP:N, WP:V and the like, so I think this page would probably survive AFD, but one thing is dead certain--this is absolutely not speediable. Red Slash 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Supervote seems to have violated consensus and CFD occured without proper notifications. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Although it was arguable before whether he was notable (personally I think being a pastor of a megachurch should usually count, but whatever), but the guy is now very clearly notable after his 12 year(!) sentencing for abusive statutory rape. This has been covered at the Chicago Tribune and Huffington post, CBS local and shed-loads of Christian sites and news sources.Teapeat (talk)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |