Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A Portuguese (amaterur?) historian, author of several books, one of which (with a controversial claim about Columbus) seems to have gained notoriety outside Portugal. His claim has been recently re-reported (and brought to my attention for the first time) in numerous media: English: [1] - CNBC, [2] - The Telegraph, [3] - Daily Mail; Polish: [4] - Wprost, [5] - Onet.pl, [6] - Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), [7] - Gazeta Wyborcza. I think this is sufficient to prove notability of his theory, and thus, his own. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Support original decision to delete. I don't see how the problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa have changed. We already have an article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions his ideas, a separate article on his idea is not appropriate. It's nice to see that that edit wasn't added by Rosa himself or one of the apparent sockpuppets that keep adding what look like promotional edits to this and the main Columbus article. I can't see how he passes our notability guidelines. Note that this publicity is sourced to his PR Release at [8]. His page on this website [9] makes it clear he isn't a professional historian - and doesn't even say he's an academic, just that he works at Duke University Medical School. I'm also trying to figure out if his book is self-published - the publisher is [10] and I find this which suggests to me that it probably is. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (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. | ||||
Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration. The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement. The undisputed statement was: "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted." Based on the previous statement: "As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image." I have since applied the image with the following template:
The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template. If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone gave a clear and unbiased response. There is no doubt that this image should rightfully be restored without needless further delay. An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision; whether it was made by an administrator, or a user, the response and subsequent course of action should not be dissimilar and dragged out needlessly, wasting time that could be spent improving articles or resolving other disputes which have cause and reason. Editor182 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You're attempting to refute facts and you've only presented doubts about these facts in your comments. Rest assured, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that this image is copyright protected. There is no doubt; it is clearly NOT copyright protected. You're basing your affirmative decision on your unreasonable comments. Why not base a decision on the evidence provided, instead? This is typeface. This is a variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering and coloring. It is a single letter of the alphabet and in the US; it may not be copyrighted. If it is not restored, then you might as well throw out the dispute resolution process for content deleted by administration. I believe your decision is either bias or shows extremely poor judgement, whereas the administrator who deleted the image was careless and self assured, disregarding consensus. The user who originally put the image up for deletion withdrew their argument, as they had enough esteem to accept that they were incorrect and corrected. Now what? Now two administrators are siding with deletion, one of them blindly and callously, as you note how the administrator who deleted the image has not commented here or on their talk page on their rationale. If this image isn't restored it will be an example of immoral and bias administration. Every person on Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia, not for their team, but that's just my opinion, just like your opinion that it should be removed based on..uncertainty, or rather; nothing. What is not an opinion is fact, the fact that this image is not copyrighted, and the appropriate trademark tag has been applied. Either do wrong or do right. Show some propriety or display abuse of power. Editor182 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Another administrator siding with "endorse", why am I not surprised. "No, a single letter is not a typeface." The copyright exclusion includes typeface and lettering. A singe letter is lettering. "To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction." Really? It just "happens to be based on the letter M"? The energy drink is called MONSTER! Clearly the "M" is for the "M" in MONSTER, and not a coincidence. "it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface"" It may be either type or lettering. "green wavy/clawy thing." No, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements. It's no ambiguous "clawy thing", I can assure you. I can also assure you that it is not a copyrighted image, without a doubt. Can you admins say the same thing? No, you can't. I believe your endorsements are bias, designed to create reasonable doubt where there isn't any. There is no reasonable doubt for deletion. If you're both genuinely endorsing and all just happen to agree on.. nothing. I say nothing because everything you've said so far has been clearly addressed as false ... ... then you're basing your decisions on doubt, and our argument is based on fact without doubt. You're pulling stuff out of your ass. You have absolutely no logical argument. The weakness of your arguments and strength of your convictions sicken me. You're all pathetic and without principle, a waste of my time when I could be improving other articles. To quote the above statement from another user: ;Pertinent Copyright regulation (Title 37, Chapter II, Section 202.1):
Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted. Do you know what this is? It's called factual and logical information, something you have clearly not presented, and you know what else? The user isn't bias, only appealing to the facts, truth, principle of the whole thing. Go ahead, endorse, suck up to your peers, be cowardly, appeal to the majority, because of course you'll have the numbers and misplaced power to close this review without overturning anything, even though you're wrong without question, and you know you're wrong without question. Congratulations, you must feel good to be on the side of injustice, you can win any argument with a delete button. Imagine an administrator came in now and was for overturning the decision.. what an oddity.. they would be basing their decision on factual information instead of supporting their peers in favor of run of the mill bullshit.. that person would be.. an administrator who thinks for themselves. An individual! How amazing! Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're all genuinely endorsing this decision.. but that would make you idiots instead of cowards.. either way, you're just users with administrative privileges, not an administrator, an administrator doesn't take sides, they're more mature and have higher esteem than that. Too bad one isn't here. Editor182 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean can't copyright a sylised letter "M". The problem with copyright is that it's a bit of a Schrödinger's cat cat type problem, how the law would be applied and interpreted can't be told until someone tries to enforce it via legal action. So until McDonalds try to uphold copyright on it, it's an indeterminate problem. They'd usually however be better off with Trademark law for such things, so it's a bit academic. I notice our rendering of the McDonalds M however does list it as non-copyrightable in our view, without seeing the logo in question, it does seem we are being inconsistent in our interpretation. I'll also agree that Editor182's latest screed is far from helpful. (also isn't an admin) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I've stated from the beginning of this review. There is no questionable doubt whatsoever that it's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
Consensus? Editor182 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, seriously Ipsign? Okay, let's just say it is copyrighted (which it isn't) on what grounds could the company sue based on this image being on Wikipedia? Copyright infringement? Okay, fair enough.. oh wait, but WHERE IS THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS?! Wikipedia is not for profit, if it was some fancy online subscription encyclopedia with paid access, then yes, that would be grounds for a case, as the image is improving the quality of their articles which people are paying to view. In this case however, the most they would do if they were bothered by it (which they wouldn't be, if anything, they'd be happy to see their product displayed here), they would send a message to an administrator to have it removed - but to file a lawsuit? Not a chance. Lawsuits are expensive, and if one was filed, the judge would throw it out, but they're not that stupid. Just think next time, okay? Think about the real world. Editor182 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, it is, in fact; lettering (one letter or more, in this case, one "M") and typographic ornamentation (the adding extraneous decorations to the "M"). I appreciate your friendly input. Editor182 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not typeface.
It's point (a) that applies to this image - lettering - it applies to any and all letter/s. "M" is a letter, it's simply not copyrighted in the US. It cannot be used on Commons, that is for unrestricted content only. This image is subject to trademark. Editor182 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I can see why it's not typeface, but no, it does not rise above simple ornamentation. It's a fancy "M". That's all. The "Best Western" logo was denied copyright? Rightfully so. Editor182 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's an interesting case in point. Editor182 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's some good work Thincat, hopefully it will help lessen any doubt on the copyright status of the "M" logo.. because doubt is all they have. Oh, man - another discussion? I usually hang out in articles, not Talk pages and discussions, but thanks to one clown from a dispute in June who monitors my account.. and one daft administrator.. well, I appreciate your input on this review, but what I would really love is a CONCENSUS, as based on the information for and against, clearly the information sourced and presented for restoring the image is incomparably greater. Is there a 7 day minimum this topic has to drag on - or can an administrator with good judgement close this right now? Wishful thinking? Alright, I support the Commons discussion. Editor182 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So let it be done! ;)
| ||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (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. |
abuse of military outlaw hardware in a public facility (WINDUH) MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC) contribs) MIL.HUNGRY over the Gogo Dodo is a false credential mafia affiliate not established as MIL authority - fake acting OAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
the article was a legitimate description of the military facade behind wikipedia that is using brain manipulation to distort articles - CSD G1 is a mafia established means of taking down any references to playboy or vegas inter alia , it has no military credibility and there is no military behind WIKIPEDIA the scanning engine which was used to determine terrorist activity is a non-employ of any legitimate military who using false credentials and stolen hardware developed and enterprise for lobbying for more porn and greed - you have a lot of explaining to do for working for that mutt let alone for the CSD G3 which means criminal intent to terrorize a terrorist network (mafia) and CSD A7 which is an actual nuclear detonation code to attempt to detonate any thermal device within the area of the person who submitted the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
rocks and dirt is the mil supervisor faking NATO clearance, there is no nato there never was a legitimate body as such let alone an imposter , "salt if recreated" means turn body into land mine through aerial bacterial weaponry out of FBA nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC) thinking that you can backdoor the MIL-SUPREME network with some sort of logic that the FBI is not allowed to administer their own wikipedia page by "cert authority" is going to get you dead real, real, real quick -- ever walk outside at all ? ever ? --MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) better call up NATO-ITALY and ask for a car --MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC) three feet away from the pi mainframe you used to control saigon to escalate a nuclear attack against the Network Nefin ? sitting in mil-command complex does not make you a mil man , 2 feet of steel bar wont save you either - and i can sit here where its warm and wait all day for your brain to be harvested and studied for research as to your multiple personality disorder , aside from your having eaten pig penis back in somolia —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (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. |
An author page was created for this author in 2008 by someone. It was included in wikipedia as it met notabiity criteria. There were some edits done but poorly done but article remained for 2 yrs till 2010. An unusual email was sent by an unknown source to wiki foundation via an email claiming some issues that were not quite correct but it led to deletion of the article even though there was interest in adding further material and comments by certain users that it had met notability criteria through verifiable sources that were relliable. Another editor created a new page for the author and I also worked on getting more material done. The article seemed to have met notability criteria in a number of ways. WP:ACADEMICS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTTEMP and WP:RS Despite meeting technical criteria and these discussed, while the discussion was on going the article was deleted by an admin. Editors were in the process of collecting further archived works from foreign sources that shows further notability when the article was deleted. Translations were also being done and alot of this work that many editors incuding myself were doing came to an end. Attempts to contact the admins are of little luck and I was wondering if the article can be sent to the incubator so work can continue on it and we do not lose the work already done.I understand the difficulty in getting material in foreign countries but we have taken a lot of effort to contact persons in those countries to get the article done well. We just want to keep working on this for a few more days to include everything. Muthuwella In my view notability is met with the following:
Discussion was taking place on how better to improve this article and some admins were helping with useful comments and we were all trying to get a good article put together. It is really not about getting the article on wikipedia but rather I am determined to give any article the chance to give the best shot at showing editors why it should be included. This article has not been given that chance. There is much more material that is different and relevant to determining its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamithra (talk • contribs)
If you need specific evidence ask me and I can e-mail or put on flikr. I took the stuff down as I didn't want a copyright issue but if it is needed as proof, I'd put it. Also I don't think anyone can deny that the books are textbooks in a number of very reputable Universities in many countries. Do a google search and you will find them. Otherwise, see the links I have put on her page that was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — Muthuwella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please note that you may have some sort of brain block where you cannot properly deduct facts but facts remain facts and your comments show that you need to get an education before you wrongly degrade foreign authors and universities. I have no interest in wikipedia, I joined this conversation because I went through all the Admins who are degrading this article and see that they are all from the UK. Maybe some are disgruntled employees from her establishment in the UK.
|
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 is fairly new to me but seems to be the recommended procedure. Deleted category as I felt that reflect consensus at CfD and this was disputed at WikiProject Baseball. Some discussion ensued on my talk page. Procedural listing in which I do not hold a strong opinion either way. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (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 taken to AFD back in 2006, which ended in 'no consensus'; more recently, it was speedy-deleted by User:Scott MacDonald under WP:G10. (It has been preserved at User:Will Beback/Swami X.) This caused considerable dispute, see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Swami X and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Scott-mac allegedly unilaterally deleting articles using inapplicable G10 CSD. It was suggested at the ANI discussion that DRV is the proper place to assess whether Scott's deletion was appropriate, so I've brought it here to settle the matter. Personally, my feelings are that the subject of the article is of dubious notability, and I would probably have !voted to delete it at AFD; but it wasn't a G10 candidate, as it was neither an attack page nor unsourced biography. Scott MacDonald should have brought it back to AFD rather than using speedy deletion; the deletion should be overturned, and the article sent to AFD instead. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (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. |
1. It is silly and preposterous that you can click a link in this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html and see the comic, and her name, and yet somehow this is not notable. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state if an article has had 'coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.' it has had coverage in the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (among other sources), a source that must be reliable if it has been featured in the New York Times of all things, independent of the subject. The article is therefore notable. 2. The original deletion was literally unanimous keep excepting the original nominator, while I was there. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, a unanimous keep is hardly a "consensus" to delete. 3. Originally, the deleter stated that a single reference could not save the article, so in requests for undeletion, the deleted page was user-fied to add a number of other references. The resulting page was submitted for feedback along the proper channels, begging absolutely no concerns for several days, and then upon being properly moved to mainspace, was summarily speedy deleted. During a discussion with the speedy deleter, I was told 'the new references are not reliable.' However, the number of them were posted as counterexample to the first deleter's accusation of too few references, and when including the original New York times linkway, the new set of references AS A WHOLE are definitely enough to establish notability. Even if a few are knocked out as reliable sources, the NYtimes link must, at least, remain, along with other sources, and since they have their own articles on Wikipedia, and have for some time, this means that they must be notable in turn: 'Establishing notability in Wikipedia is somewhat similar to establishing a high PageRank in Google ... the notability of a subject is measured in part by the notability of the sources which talk about the subject. In other words, the most notable of businesses, such as Microsoft, are notable because they're being talked about by the most notable of sources, such as the Wall Street Journal.' Since DMFA's nomination for the web cartoonists' choice awards, which was mentioned in turn in the NYtimes (among other available references) it necessarily must fulfill this reliability chain for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sim (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In response 4. From http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm, which was originally linked from my NYtimes link: (See Web_Cartoonists'_Choice_Awards for details). 'Dan & Mab's Furry Adventures by Amber M. Panyko nomination for OUTSTANDING ANTHROPOMORPHIC COMIC.' http://www.ccawards.com/2005ceremony/anthro.htm Tangents did a more in-depth article, which I believe fits the significance criteria: http://www.tangents.us/?s=dmfa Also other sources in the article, which I don't remember off-hand.
5. Also, apparently, yes there was an additional delete given at the last second. So is 'Delete, lacking reliable sources.' sufficiently persuasive an argument to countermand the remainder of "keep"s otherwise mentioned, with reasons given? Point known, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this would imply that there needs to be an eloquent argument by the dissenter against the remainder of consensus for keep. The delete recommendations are all just base statements, while the keeps have several substantial arguments. How could that possibly be a deletion consensus? Never mind that new notability sources were added since. Sim (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (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. |
Comment directed to jc37, but posted here because it's mildly relevant and for the sake of trying to keep things (mostly) in one place. jc37, in your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair you made two assertions. You then also copied those assertions to your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and also you subsequently posted links to both those pages at several noticeboards. The first statement I have in mind is "the author makes it clear below that that is the intent" (the intent being "to disparage" "their subject or some other entity" and the author being myself). I did not make any comment in the MfD that can be interpreted to mean that my intent when creating the page was to disparage an individual or entity. I therefore request that you withdraw this statement. As far as I can see, it is false and is presumably the result of a misunderstanding. (I also do not agree that the original page is intended to disparage an individual. As its author, I am the only person who can comment authoritatively on the intention. The page comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor.) The second statement I have in mind is "The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations". While it is indeed correct that Giano, unwisely in my view, threatened to repeatedly recreate a version of the page, I myself did not participate in such recreations nor did I indicate that I would do so. Your statement, in the context of closing an MfD in which you also make allegations about the intentions of the page author, might very easily be misunderstood to mean that I had suggested an intention on my part to recreate the page if deleted. I would therefore like you to clarify this. (To avoid confusion; I have no objections, then or now, to the page being salted if it was, or is, deleted.) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (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 "vote count" showed no consensus. It was closed as delete on the basis that a "vast array" of votes were from IPs who had "presumably" been canvassed. But there were not that many IPs and no evidence of canvassing. The closing admin now says that he discounted a bunch of keep votes because he disagreed with their reasoning. Basically this was an arbitrary decision. TiC (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (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. |
> Dear Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales: On July 2, 2008, I posted a page on the subject of GRAMMY Nominated musician Lisa Haley. I posted her All Music Guide review, written by Larry Belanger, who is a friend of Lisa's and a staunch Cajun/Zydeco music supporter. Before posting, I studied as many of the 'Wikipedia rules' as I could about how to submit. One guideline states "say it in your own words" but others say "must be from a published source." Because Larry also included info about Lisa's past band members (10-year-old information,) I updated the info before submitting, to reflect the current band members. The next day, I was mortified to receive a note on my post from someone named Nancy. Nancy accused me of committing "flagrant copyright violation," by updating the band members' names! I of course was shocked to be accused of anything illegal. She would not reply to any of my letters of apology, as if I were some kind of willful criminal. Since then, I have spoken with several more Wiki-knowledgeable friends, who explained that I should have simply posted the AllMusic article, waited for it to be approved, then gone back in and updated the band members names. I have tried five times to re-submit Lisa's All Music article. Each time I am blocked. All Lisa's contemporaries have Wikipedia pages. Most of them are written by their wives!! And not a published article at all. Meanwhile we languish as villains for simply wanting our info to be accurate. This is all a simple misunderstanding of the "say it in your own words" guideline. I have apologized to Nancy five times. I get no answer. Can you please help me? I'd like to: simply start over. Post the AllMusic Guide article by Larry Belanger, wait for it to be approved, then go in and update the band members' names. Kindest Regards, Andy Anders AndyAnders (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (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. |
While the future event is certain to take place, individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event meets Wikipedia:Notability per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This topic has not been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources and there is nothing in the AfD discussion to indicate otherwise, so I don't believe that the AfD had a consensus that the topic meets General notability guidelines. I ask the closing admin to review the close and the response included "Do you dispute that this episode will air soon, or that it will have this title, or what? Anyway, the AfD was unanimous, whit one redirect and the others keep (one duplicate, but that doesn't change the consensus)."[21] I believe that an appropriate course of action is to overturn the AfD close and redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2010 (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. |
good sources, international publications, criticism Danielconstantin (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Hello my dear friends. How are you? I hope, very well. With all my respect, I propose you to recover the page of the Canadian writer Ionuţ Caragea (Romanian by origin and living in Quebec). The admin who deleted the page don't talk with me, I have now answer from him[23]. Now Ionuţ Caragea's article have good sources, criticism, important references in big and international publications and I think he deserve to be in Wikipedia. I selected for you the best sources, the best references and I demand you, with all my sympathy, to recreate this page. Thank you very much and I wish you all my best from Canada. Ionuţ Caragea (Snowdon King pen-name)
.
more results: Google.com
Hi. Biruitorul. How are you, I hope you are ok. Your story is very beautiful, but is not true. You must understand something. This author is not a minor poet, like you consider. This author was appreciated by specialist and critics. This author is a professional writer; member is Union of Writers in his country. Your opinion is very personal, but you don’t have the authority to make judgments like: minor, obscure etc. Why do you want to put this author in disgrace? We have here, in this page, some specialist who appreciates Ionut Caragea. Specialists with pages on Wikipedia. You want to tell us that you are more qualified then the others to say minor, obscure etc? You must respect the rules of Wikipedia, you must respect the sources. That it! My dear friends, the international publication Observatorul from Toronto have a Honoris Causa Award and The Best editorial and design Award, accorded by National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada. Observatorul is awarded also by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania), Government of Romania. Take a look here [44]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Why Biruitorul is not honest with us? The Society of Science Fiction and Fantasy is a National Institution in Romania [45]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Agero from Germany have Diploma of Excellence accorded by Romanian National Patrimony [46]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Can you tell us, Biruitorul, your reason to disqualify such big publications and institutions and specialist? I’m a big fan in a big Country. Ionuţ Caragea is an appreciated author by specialist and publications and it’s my right and my freedom to make an article. I think Biruitorul try to disgrace this author because he don’t want to recognize the evolution of this author in the last year. Thank you very much, please check and verify the authenticity of my affirmations. Thank you. --Danielconstantin (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Biruitorul, why you are not honest with us? Why do you try to invent such stories? You are not a specialist; you don’t know anything about Union of Writers from Romania. To join this Union you must pass the Committee of admission, formed by critics and specialist who determined the notoriety of the candidate. Ionut Caragea passed this commission. Paying dues is not the condition to be member; the only condition is the notoriety. Observatorul is an International magazine from Canada, Diaspora, and is a literary magazine. It is the biggest literary magazine in Canada. Is awarded by Government of Canada and Government of Romania with diploma of excellence. Is the biggest proof of notoriety! The other magazines you mentioned are not literary magazines; they are just local newspapers in Romania. We speak here about a Canadian writer who live is Canada. He is notable in Canada, Germany, he have international notoriety in literary magazines. We speak about facts, diploma, documents, awards, not about fiction stories and suppositions. We must respect Wikipedia rules; we must prove with facts, not with the suppositions like you. I advise you to learn rules and politics of Wikipedia. If you are deeply suspicious, is your problem. In fact, I have more contributions than you on the French Wikipedia, like anonymous. I’m not obligated to justify my activity, but here, in this request, I want to deal with people, I respect the others, and for this reason I chose to make an account with my name. Keep your suppositions for you, please! Society of Science Fictions and Fantasy have an editorial. (http://www.srsff.ro/articole/editorial/). Is not a forum, is the editorial, the online publications, the official website. Why you are not honest with us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielconstantin (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Some specialist from the list has notoriety in French wikipedia also. In Romanian Wikipedia also. They are specialist, you are not. You must respect facts. One more thing. When you speak about „obscure exile newspapers”, you made a xenophobic declaration. Canda is not the Exile of this writer. This writer is not condemned, is not quilted for something. He is an emigrant. He is a Canadian citizen and Romanian citizen also. We talk about Diaspora and Canada. We talk about freedom, democracy and liberty. We talk about universality. I ask you to respect us. In conclusion, nothing from your declaration is true. You came with suppositions, you disgrace big magazines and specialists, you disgrace the Diaspora and Canada and you disgrace me with yours remarks. You must be more respectfully, you must respect rules and politics and you must be honest with us. If you have some personal problems with the author, please keep your opinion for you. I’m here with proofs and facts. You must learn this lesson. Have a nice day. I will ask again the Wikipedia administrators to verify the sources and my declarations. Everything is there. Each affirmation is a fact. Not a supposition. Thank you very much. --Danielconstantin (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2010 (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. |
Overturn to keep. I think the admin made a big mistake in deleting this page, because the arguments were clearly on the Keep-side (also in numbers: 10 users for Keep, 6 for Delete). This was the 3rd nomination, before she was notable enough for en.wiki. She clearly passes Wikipedia:GNG as shown in the last Afd. He (admin) also showed that he doesn´t want articles like Madison Ivy (per WP:PORNBIO) and Girlvana in Wikipedia, which clearly pass the criteria. So I assume he is not neutral in this point. I don´t wanna repeat all arguments, but the main argument is she was really popular, has numerous articles in non-porn media, has made a lot of Cover shootings and so on. Even that she quitted the porn business and converted to Christianity and tries to make real acting makes her more notable. So I please you to review the deletion. Admin is informed. --Hixteilchen (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Please note that I am the editor who initially nominated this article for deletion, since it seemed obvious that the controversy was notable but the book itself was not. Although multiple editors suggested a merge, User:Courcelles closed the AfD as "delete" with the rationale that "a merge would give it undue weight in the Amazon article". When I asked Courcelles to reconsider their closure, they stated "there was absolutely no way the entire article could be shoved into Amazon.com without unbalancing it". Clearly, as in all such cases, a merge would need to be selective, and the idea of inserting the entire article into Amazon.com is spurious. This controversy has generated a great deal of press. While I think the comments about censorship in the AfD were misguided, it is likely that failing to merge the relevant content will generate more of the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (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 file was discussed here, with 9 out of 11 editors indicating agreement with the valid use of the image. Just hours after that discussion was closed, an editor opened an identical, new deletion request here, claiming the previous discussion was "out of process". This new discussion sat for seven days mostly unnoticed and undiscussed (except for the two editors that previously supported the deletion of the file), and then the image file was deleted. It was not until this deletion when I, and other previously interested editors, became aware of the existence of this new "discussion". The image file should be restored per the actual FfD discussion, and if a new deletion discussion is warranted due to "out of process" concerns (this is disputed by some Admins and editors), then it should be relisted with appropriate due notice, so that interested and previously involved editors will be informed that their earlier input on the matter has been unceremoniously disregarded and scrubbed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (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. |
Maybe this is a mistake but at least for two years I have seen the encyclopaedia article on 'Manifesta' which is an extremely important art biennale of international significance. Here is the archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesta Also you can see how important is Manifesta: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,26696,27552,27739&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=manifesta+biennale&cp=18&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw&fp=ed958012ddba4d59 Strangely I can read the same article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GC6RpYN7ATwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesta+manifesta+8&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk The article is factual and neutral and of course for many years we can read it. Just this year the article is out? It is very strange. The article is deleted because it is 'advertising'? This is very strange. It is maybe like deleting article on Olympics or maybe Bundestag if factual entries are made [anybody] . It looks very bad. Maybe it is a mistake? I hope so. If this is a mistake then it should be restored to the last accepted version - but there is also this existing Manifesta which Thierry Geoffroy is a prominent artist at - I want to add his link to the 8th version of Manifesta. According to 'Archive.org' the Wikipedia article is at least 4 years old so the deletion must be a mistake. The content is completely normal. Neutral point of view Now it is a little more clear. It must be a mistake. There are many articles within Wikipedia which refer to Manifesta: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=manifesta+&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 This is important to bring back all these important materials to us students! Sorenonilsson (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (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 non-admin closure for keep followed three keep !votes that were entirely based on looking at accomplishments listed in other unsourced Wikipedia articles at foreign language Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially not completely unreferenced BLPs at other language Wikipedias. The AfD was reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariza Ikonomi (2nd nomination), but was speedy closed by Scott Mac as "pointy". I don't think a keep vote based on using Wikipedia as a source is valid, and I ask that either the original AfD be reopened and relisted, or the second AfD be reopened and relisted with the original AfD votes copied to it. The second AfD drew one delete vote before being closed. The fact that it was a non-admin closure is not the central issue here, but rather the fact that it was an improper closure that failed to discount votes based on using Wikipedia as a source. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (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. |
Ths closing admin here has wrongly focussed on the WP:GNG, when the actual reason for deletion was for failing WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, and WP:AIRCRASH. And looking at the whole debate against that rationale, an outcome of a "strong consensus" to keep is very hard to properly justify. He also appears to have taken barely 4 minutes to decide that. (that's the short TLDR version, read on for a fuller explanation if you want) Going through the debate, first you must dismiss the completely ignorable non-votes (Elmao 09:31, Dr. Blofeld 18:55), and the bare blind assertion votes, (68.45.109.14 04:10, Milowent 18:55), and then even arguably the 'follow the leader' type questionable votes that Lugnut's original comment seemed to spawn (Zbase4 01:34, Saqib Qayyum 06:39, nomi887 07:06, Ser Amantio di Nicolao 18:39), which are devalued both as simple poor PERNOM votes, and by his failure to defend that 'parent' vote even on the prima facie ommissions/errors he made on the basic wording of the GNG. After that first pass of elimination, you are not left with much either tbh. While you do move onto votes which at least gave some sort of not immediately invalid, expanded, arguments, some addressing the full rationale, some not, they all still contained many flaws and reasons to discount them. For example, many of the arguments which attempted to rebutt WP:NOT#NEWS for example, (Sjakkalle 15:11, Cyclopiatalk 21:10, Pedro 15:39, Wikireader41 14:17), claimed to know what was and was not 'routine', yet could not/would not defend their votes to challenge, and to a man they all decided to completely ignore EVENT, despite it being the accepted guideline for making that particular judgement call. Others attempted to simply give their own aircrash notability criteria, and thus simply hang their vote on a declaration their own standards were met, (Mar4d 08:46, Mjroots 03:23), even though they were pointed to the pre-existing essay/draft guidance on the topic, which may not count for much, but are all we have specifically on aircrashes, and so obviously, if that info is to be ignored in favour of proprietary opinions, it should be with a good, evidence backed, rationale. Where other votes like Pedros's classic WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC type rationale come in the grand scheme of things is not really clear to me given the closing statement, but that above is a full summary of all the votes which the closer asserts showed a "strong consensus" to keep. And on that score, it is shocking to realise that in that whole debate, whether people used policy backed reasons or not, to a man, not once did anybody refer or specifically use the actual content of the actual sources used in the article to back their opinions, which as of now, still represents just one 24 hour news cycle. As such, even keep rationales which looked at first glance to be policy backed, are infact weak. I think many keepers simply chose not back up their opinions when challenged, because an examination of the actual sources left them no other choice but to stay silent on anything they might have asserted as fact, in the grand scheme of all things 'encyclopoedic'. In terms of quality of debate, of the few people who did decide to even attempt to defend their votes from challenge, rather than just voting and running, engaging these people proved to just be a complete waste of time in terms of proper Afd practices, as the respective discussion threads started, or descended, into classic tendentious behaviour, such as playing the man and not the ball, or continuing to pretend even after correction that the assertion that 'the deletion reason is just an essay' was remotely true. In terms of being able to divine a consensus via the expression of proper and cluefull argumentation, which is what Afd is supposed to be about, not much of anything the keep side blindly asserted about the GNG, or otherwise claimed was somehow a rebuttal of the deletion rationale, but wasn't really, counted for much in that regard. Moving to the timing issue, based on his contribs for that date, the closing admin appears to have spent less than four minutes reviewing the whole discussion and coming to his conclusion, which seems to be backed up by that fact he did not comment at all on all the questions and points I made specifically for the benefit of the closer. I did ask the closer to clarify all this before coming to review, putting all these objections out in detail on his talk page, and he has responded with the metaphorical middle finger, so I don't see why his ability to properly review and summarise a complex Afd discussion like that should be assumed by anyone here. If he now chooses to do so here, it is bear in mind, at the third time of asking. On the meta-level merits of the closure in general, just to illustrate the general poorness of it, which I remind you is cited as a "stong consensus" for deeming something worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, take a look at any random piece of news that is on Google News right now, and ask yourself in all honesty, would that have been remotely delete-able given the exact same keep arguments, and this closure? I think not, which should set alarms bells ringing for any editor not at the extreme ends of the policy interpretation spectra. So, all these things considered, this closure is I believe, resting on pretty shaky ground, and at the least, should be overturned to a 'no consensus' (i.e., deletion rationale not answered, but consensus to delete not fully shown). As ever, I remind responders and the closer of the review, that this debate is DRV, not AFD 2, so keep your arguments focused on the merits and validity of the closure, not on rehasing the Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This particular DRV asked a specific question, "was the AfD Close valid". This question has been asked in two of the three preceding DRVs (the DRV of 26 August was a challenge to a G4 deletion of a recreation). This time, many of the votes to endorse expressed weariness on revisiting this same issue again, and I have given those less weight based on the notion that consensus can change. So did consensus change? In essence, all substantial votes point to the three previous DRVs and the arguments already exposed there on the application of BLP1E. Out of DRV#4 I mostly retain the following comments:
The most efficient way to demonstrate that the concerns have been addressed is a working userspace draft, and that one such would be helpful is the only true consensus in this round. Accordingly, this closer recommends following this course of action and seek userification if this article remains desirable. MLauba (Talk) 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
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. |
The original article was deleted as a work in progress for having too wide a critiera for inclusion. I have now narrowed the critera so I'd like to request undeletion. What I would like placed back on the page is shown where I have made the improvements at User:The C of E/List of sponsored sports competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2010 (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. |
Not following this guideline with this edit Barts1a (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The procedural "endorses" in this DRV have been given less weight because while (in my view) they involve entirely valid criticisms of the nominator's approach to this DRV, more editors than the nominator are seeking review of this decision and it's not at all clear why the failure to follow non-obligatory procedure (albeit on a repeat basis) should affect the outcome of this review. There are also a number of substantive !votes on both sides of this DRV that have been given less weight because they haven't added much to the discussion by way of reasoning. This DRV is obviously very evenly balanced on the numbers, leaning slightly to "overturn" by my count. On the arguments, this DRV is also closely balanced. The contributions of S Marshall and Sandstein are illuminative and demonstrate the particular difficulty with AfDs in which the discussion doesn't deeply interrogate the relevant policies, particularly when the policies are contentious to the point of being vaguely worded. There is a consensus that the closing admin was correct to give less weight to a number of keep !votes, but there is no consensus that that lead to a delete outcome. For example, a number of editors have questioned whether the delete !votes were well reasoned. A number of editors have also questioned whether the keep !votes were disregarded to too great an extent. There is not a consensus to overturn. Nor is there a consensus to endorse. The relevant DRV policy states If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. In the circumstances, I am treating this no consensus as equivalent to a relist. This DRV has shown - through points made by both endorse and overturn !votes - that the AfD could have benefited from better arguments on both sides. If the deletion action was not supported by a consensus here at AfD, the logical outcome is to avoid the permanently binding effect of the subpar AfD and open it up for another round. The AfD will be re-opened and listed on the first day's log. It can be closed after 168 hours. Editors who have already !voted will have the chance to flesh out their points of view, and the involvement of new editors will help the AfD reach a satisfactory conclusion. While there is no consensus to endorse the close, I want to make it clear that does not imply that there was any real community support in this DRV for the view that closing adminstrator acted in any way improperly, by super!voting, bias or otherwise. Quite the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Appears to have been closed as delete with a supervote instead of no consensus. A vague reference to WP:Info was given as the reason Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Please can we keep any animosity between Richard A Norton and other editors off this discussion? Even if it was wrong not to discuss with Black Kite on his talkpage first, Black Kite himself chose (as is perfectly acceptable) to continue discussion here when I went to his talkpage to discuss the matter. There are other editors besides the nominator who believe the closing was mistaken. We're here now, so let's put all that baggage away. On that note, this DRV is not (or should not be) an attack on the closing admin's integrity. This is a normal procedure when challenging a decision. Black Kite has done nothing "improper". That is not the same as saying his judgement in this matter is thereby unimpeachable. They are two different issues, as I'm sure we would all agree. Thirdly, I would ask editors not to interpret WP:NOTAVOTE as meaning either (a) all minority closings cannot be challenged (rather than "minority closings can be correct") which is implied heavily in a couple of arguments here, or (b) that head counts are entirely irrelevant. Here is what WP:CLOSE says:
This particular AfD looks like a very good example of "no consensus", given that actually very few of the !votes fulfill the criteria for discarding, and any tightening of the criteria leads to !votes on both sides (e.g. "useful/not useful") being rejected. Even Sandstein says either keep or delete would have been "defensible" - which shouts out "no consensus" as the proper result. Have we abandoned "no consensus" as an outcome? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Note This is not true. Only one keep !voter commented on the nominator, and unlike the persistent bickering about the nominator here, it was a mild teasing comment that did not derail discussion at all. It is not the closer's role to choose which arguments he or she prefers. It is to eliminate all arguments not related to policy, and then see what the dominant view is - that is, which policy is generally considered by "responsible editors" more pertinent in this case. As "useful" is a criterion for list pages, such !votes cannot be dismissed or ignored. As has been commented, the "delete" arguments weren't, if one applies that view even-handedly, particularly forceful either. Furthermore, sourcing was not an issue at the AfD, so should not be brought up here. This is not a rehash of the discussion. (In any case, that is not an argument for deletion - it is an argument to add sources. I presume that Quigley is not arguing that there are no sources). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (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. |
page=Veronica_Moser reason=You deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Moser The reasons given for deletion are not entirely clear. What was given as reasons are that it was "derogatory" and that it was a PORNBIO. "Derogatory" is a matter of subjective opinion (and one that was not explained at all) and so cannot be used as a criteria for determining if a page should be deleted. I suspected that the deletion of this page may have been motivated by religious values and so I took a look at Eluchil404 user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eluchil404 Religion: "BC St. Ignatius apse window 3.jpg This user is a High Church, conservative adherent of Anglican Christianity." This may lend a better perspective of what might have been meant by "derogatory". The PORNBIO criteria is not clearly defined and nothing was stated about what PORNBIO criteria were used to match the deleted page. And so for the two reasons given for deleteion -- derogatory and PORNBIO -- it appears that there is not one criteria that is reasoned. The page was deleted without well-reasoned argument. This should not have happened. The talk page for Veronica Moser was also deleted and so comments about the deletion cannot be placed there. The talk page should not have been deleted. The talk page should be restored so that it can be used as for a proper discussion on the page's deletion and about its restoration. While I agree that Veronica Moser is controversial, factually correct information about this person should not have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.225.206 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Okay every week before I watch a new episode of The Nostalgia Critic on youtube, I check the list here on Wikipedia. I missed the last episode and now I am trying to look for the list of episodes and now it is gone. The list didn't break any rules that I know of and the last time I checked, there was no deletion template. Another fan has complained on Talk:That Guy with the Glasses for the same reason. That was wrong to delete that article. I really want it back! SeanWheeler (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (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. |
(N.B.: This request covers Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 through Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level nn and related categories. These are the categories associated with the various service awards.) Contested speedy. Here's the deal: on 25 October 2007, After Midnight deleted Category:Editors with service awards after a CfD discussion here. It was a reasonable close, not the kind of close that would usually come here to DRV, although in my opinion it was arguably a marginal close (the headcount was 6-3 in favor of deletion, but most of the discussion was back-and-forth between two editors, with neither editor clearly gaining the upper hand, and the closer didn't give any reason why he chose Delete.) My understanding is that the deletion included several related categories (I'm not sure of this). A reverse of this close would have obviated the need for this DRV, but User talk:After Midnight declined my recent request to reverse the close, partly on the grounds that he can't remember the particulars and isn't available right now for extensive reconstruction of the matter. OK, in (I think) July of this year someone created a number of categories, such as Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 and its sister categories, the numbers running from 01 up into the teens. I'm given to understand that these are essentially the same as Category:Editors with service awards and its related categories, and I guess this is so. An editor (BlackFalcon) deleted Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 et al under Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) G4, recreation of deleted material. I contested this, and contested speedy deletions are often reversed, but not always, and this certainly applies to CSD G4's. BlackFalcon vouchsafed that he felt duty-bound to apply CSD G4 and couldn't honor my request. He's expected to perform his admin duties to advance the best interests of the Wikipedia as he sees them, so that's his prerogative. However, this raised in my mind the question: does availability of a category to CSD G4 deletion ever expire? The deletion review category states "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." However, categories don't contain information, so it's impossible to write a "new" version. So does this mean that a category, once deleted (even in a marginal close) can never be recreated? This seems overly rigid to, and raises a couple of questions:
Another point: the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light" clause may be said to be met in that:
In summary, I'd say that in most any case (except copyvio etc.) where there's a reasonable chance that an entity would survive an XfD (as there is here), then the entity shouldn't be speedied. In the case of a G4, fine, we can't reargue cases immediately. But I think three years is long enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2010 (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. |
OK, the last real AFD was in April 2008, since that, every new article was deleted speedly. I think the admins make huge mistake, even if she has only one nomination, she is really popular in the industry. So I propose a new AFD-discussion with all arguments! Just google Rachel Roxxx to see the relevance, I know this is not much relevant, but in this case it is really informative. Since April 2008 have gone 2 and 1/2 years, and she is very active in the industry...She played in Big Tits at School 1&2 (award-winning - Best Big Bust release), and This Ain't Cheaters XXX (best known Hustler-series). She has 45 scenes on Brazzers, one of the biggest internet porn sites, behind Shyla Stylez (51) she has the most scenes on this site. This person has 6 international wikis and 35 pics on Wiki Commons. She has +100 articles on AVN.com and worked for all big companies. Only if you hold straight on the Wikipedia:PORNBIO and don´t think outside the box, she is not relevant for en.wiki. Greets --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (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. |
One !delete, two !keeps per my count is a no consensus, even a keep, not a delete. Yes, the article was a BLP on a minor, but was properly sourced to cover the information in the article, which was totally uncontroversial. This was an inappropriate use of admin discretion against consensus on a sourced uncontroversial BLP, I'm afraid. Procedurally, I'd ask for an overturn with no prejudice against a relist at AFD. StrPby (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2010 (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. |
The following chronology is obvious on the deleted article’s talk page; Article gets kept at AfD. Several editors dislike this decision and they continue to attempt to get the article deleted, meanwhile breaching policies like WP:CIVIL (trying to out the creator, etc). Other individual WP:DISRUPTIVE claims are arguable, but not far-fetched. These editors hit a nerve with WP:COI. Their groupation constitutes a “COI tag consensus”. Article creator seeks help at COIN, and gets lucky- an even-handed admin gets on the mediation case (Atama states “article is in no danger of deletion in a very long time”!!). Later, this admin takes a break. Creator asks for help at COIN again a month later and editor SmartSE enters the picture. Smartse completely disregards Atama’s mediation, simply guts the article, removes sources as sees fit (some were removed that were secondary and relevant), and nominates for deletion. Article gets deleted. Several AfD participants pointed out unfair activity (even a delete voter). I do not have a problem with the admin’s closure, the delete result is obvious, but what is to stop someone from going on a rampage through the project of copying this activity and removing all individual’s works per WP:NOTDIR, gutting articles and repeatedly nominating for deletion while referring to this case and decision? I mean, nominate a very notable subject enough times, it may just get deleted. Also, Smartse deleted a contribution of another editor who voted “keep” during the AfD (PamelaBMX), thus creating a precedent to allowance of retribution (I could now go and dissect the articles created by editors who voted different than I and simply again reference this case and decision). What am I missing? Do enlighten me if I am wrong. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (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. |
I think that the deletion of Sam Vaknin - should be overturned as:
I only stumbled upon the AFD quite recently. It seems that several attempts have since been made to recreate Sam Vaknin including administrator User:Eugene van der Pijll. I have not had a response from administrator User:Johnleemk who closed the AFD. His account now seems to be semi-dormant. Administrator User talk:C.Fred allowed me to update and improve the article at User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin. I have tried to be NPOV and balanced. There are about 12 secondary references in User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin mainly from the high quality press. I have no problem with somebody starting a new AFD on my new version User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin but it is only fair that the slate is wiped clean and the old AFD is disregarded. Penbat (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2010 (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 was deleted as an WP:CSD#G10. I think the original page, an official charge sheet, ended up on this user-page through a good faith mistake on my part -- as it was material that would have been completely compliant for inclusion on wikisource, and would have been more useful there. When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource. At the old page I left a link to the new wikisourced version, and a list of terms mentioned in the charge sheet. I did this because I thought these were all terms that might, potentially, merit a reference to wikisourced page. I planned to look at each one, later, and decide whether I thought they merited that reference. The deletion log says the deleting administrator explained the reason for their deletion on my talk page. That would be this comment. Not putting this page at wikisource in the first place was a mistake. That is where it belonged. That is where it would have been more useful. Why the admin thinks I would have purposely limited the usefulness of a page by putting it on the wrong WMF project page is beyond me. I dispute the admin′s characterization that I was being disingenious. The admin did not address my justification for how I planned to use the last version of the page. I think the purpose I said I was going to use the page for was completely compliant with WP:User pages, and all our other policies, guidelines and conventions. For what it is worth I told the administrator in question that I was concerned that their emotions seemed to be too involved, and I requested them to take off their administrator hat when addressing concerns they have with material I have contributed. They have declined, even to the extent of declining to email me the last version of pages they deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (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. |
I am a good faith contributor, I believe I am entitled to the assumption of good faith. No good faith contributor wants to unknowingly repeat mistakes. I suggest that even if the deleting administrator is POSITIVE material they deleted violated a policy like WP:COPYVIO, they should still comply with a good faith request to email the deleted material to a good faith contributor. I think even if multiple administrators reviewed the deleted material, and they were all positive it violated a policy the material should still be emailed to the good faith contributor who initially contributed it. I think withholding that email from a good faith contributor is a serious mistake. If the material OBVIOUSLY violated a policy it may be that seeing the offending material is all the good faith contributor will need to (1) see the error of their ways in this particular instance; (2) remind them of other instances where they unknowingly made similar mistakes. Alternately, even the most mature, knowledgeable and experienced administrator is going to make the occasional good faith mistake themselves. If I understand the deleting administrator′s position of this list, as per Fiest v. Rural, copying the Brookings Institute list of facts about released captives does not violate anyone′s intellectual property rights, as lists of facts aren′t copyrightable. If I understand the deleting administrator′s position they say I carried into User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives certain footnotes and that some of those footnotes, passed the bar for de minimus. I like to think of myself as careful. I′d like to think I am generally careful enough that I wouldn′t make that kind of mistake. I know I am capable of error. I think it is reasonable for me to see what I uploaded for myself, to see how much I lapsed. I use the pages I create in user-space. If the only problem with this material is some footnotes, maybe I can trim those footnotes and use the uncopyrightable remainder somewhere. Alternately, maybe it wouldn′t be worth the effort. I′d like to see for myself. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (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. |
I was clearly in the minority with my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable, my opinion has not changed but I respect consensus. However, with this case we are left with an unreferenced WP:BLP. Sources were brought up in the deletion discussion but not added to the article because they are behind a paywall. Alternatives to deletion including a redirect, userfication, and incubation were suggested until the article is properly sourced. I requested the closing admin to reconsider his decision but our opinions differ. Thank you. —J04n(talk page) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (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. |
Applying the G4 Criterion for speedy deletion was improper in this case because this entry was substantially different and addressed the concerns cited in the original deletion decision. An older version of the article, which I did not write, was deleted in 2009, apparently due to objections over its lack of supporting references or notability and some vague objections to its tone. On October 28 I posted another Article under the title Goldsea. It was written painstakingly to avoid tonal controversies. It contained 31 references that supported every one of the material statements int he article. was improved upon by several others as well as myself. Today, it was deleted without warning on the ground that that the original had been deleted following discussion. In short, there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision on what is essentially a completely different article. This is particularly troubling in light of the thousands of Wikipedia articles are stubs that are not supported at all by outside references and are not written with nearly as much care, skill and useful information. For example, even within the category of Asian American Media, articles like Asianave, Asianweek, Little India, Koream Journal, Asianave fall far short of the standards used in writing the Goldsea entry. Given that Goldsea is the longest running professionally written Asian American website, and given that it was founded by the publisher of the first national magazine for Asian Americans, I believe it easily meets the notability criterion. Therefore, I believe the article merits review by some objective editors who have not been involved in this process. And if the deletion decision stands, it should be supported not only by clear rationale, but some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected. AA Patrol (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) AA Patrol (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
First, I'd like to thank the editors DGG and S Marshall for taking the time to address this in a way that suggests that there are fair-minded, caring minds behind Wikipedia's policies. I was feeling a bit beleagured by the swiftness with which my efforts had been rendered meaningless. I have to admit that there are no readily available major news stories about Goldsea, which is why I used the NY Times and LA times articles to lay the historical foundation about Kagy and his groundbreaking magazines, then linked his mission to the Goldsea site via the Goldsea 4-Part piece on Asian American Media History. I felt that Kagy's notability as a publisher, combined with the sheer number of cites that Goldsea has garnered on Wikipedia itself, not to mention other media stories, was sufficient to establish notability. However, I will try to come up with some mentions of Goldsea's Most Inspiring Asian Americans in articles of reputable news media like the ones cited by DGG. AA Patrol (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Article on H Mart Shopping Center: "In an article on Asian shopping centers, the Asian-American online newspaper GoldSea.com said H Mart is "the place you take non-Asian friends when you want to impress them with just how modern and sophisticated Asians are."" http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/06/large_korean_grocery_coming/ Article on Branson Country Music Performer Shoji Tabuchi: "Tabuchi's unusual-for-country-music ethnicity, he felt, actually worked to his advantage. "Say person A and person B play just as good," he told an interviewer from the Goldsea Asian American Profiles website. "Who stands out, me or him?"" http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3443600070.html Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "For this occasion, World Vision Taiwan recently invited acclaimed singer Wang Leehom — one of the most inspiring Asian Americans of all time according to the Goldsea Asian American Daily, and a longtime ambassador for the charity — to visit the Republic of Sierra Leone in West Africa and witness the improvement Taiwan's help had brought to people's livelihoods there." http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/int%27l--community/2009/06/07/211236/Wang-Leehom.htm Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "Wang Leehom was one of the first torchbearers for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, and performed in the Olympics' closing ceremony in Beijing. Wang Leehom was listed among "The 100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time" by Goldsea Asian American Daily." http://www.suzhou-expat.com/news-mainmenu-87/272-2010-music-man-tour-in-changshu.html Article on Actor B.D. Wong: "Awards: “100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time” Goldsea Asian American Daily; 2003", http://www.asianweek.com/2009/05/06/chinese-american-hero-bradley-darryl-wong/ I am having trouble saving all the entries. It keeps cutting me off. I will try adding the rest in a separate save. AA Patrol (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Without burdening this page too much more, here are a few more examples of Goldsea being cited by other media: Goldsea listed as one of the expert multicultural media resources. http://multiculturalmarketingresources.com/expertsshowcase.html Article on Asian American Women in Business: "The Goldsea site is devoted to inspiring stories of attaining your dreams and ways to protect your business, and lists influential people as well as Asian heroes." http://www.asianamericanalliance.com/Asian-Women-in-the-Business-World.html Article on Silicon Valley Businesses: "America's 100 Top Asian Entrepreneurs The GoldSea 100 annually honors the most successful Asian American entrepreneurs. It now includes six billionaires, including a 32-year-old who also happens to be the youngest entrepreneur ever to make the top 10." http://entrepreneurs.about.com/od/famousentrepreneur/ Article on an Advertising Campaign by Ford: "To reach China, Korea and Vietnam, Ford is also buying ad takeovers of sina.com and goldsea.com and has purchased air time on Asian TV networks." http://www.adotas.com/2006/12/ford-unleashing-major-cross-media-ad-blitz/ Listing of Asian American Media "Goldsea: Asian American Supersite Large full-featured magazine. See especially Media Watch: Monitoring Asian progress in American mass media" http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/GenderMedia/asian.html Discussion on a Japan Today Magazine site Forum: "I don't think it really matters how the world spells it as most of them are now used to Korea. However, if the country does change it officially to Corea, I think the world would follow. Some links: www.geocities.com/neue_strassenbahn/corea.html www.medeasin.com/coreaspelling.htm goldsea.com/Air/Issues/Corea/corea.html" http://forum.japantoday.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=907175 AA Patrol (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (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 letter is intended to request the undeletion of the Buddy Society Wikipedia page. The page existed for several months documenting the Los Angeles based fashion label. On October 16th, 2010 new information was added to the page regarding the history of shows hosted by Buddy Society. This resulted in an immediate deletion. Prior to this addition, the page had been approved by an editor and was a part of Wikipedia. The request for undeletion is an effort towards the return of Buddy Society's Wikipedia page in it's former state, prior to the addition of new information that was considered to violate Wikipedia's regulations. The editor that deleted the page was contacted in search for a resolution for this issue. S/he declared that the original page contained adjectives that did not adhere to the the site's neutral point of view policy. These adjectives are not necessary to provide factual information on Buddy Society and can be omitted from the page without changing the content. The purpose of the page is to document information about the label that has been published in other sources, and the intention was never one of advertisement. Another reason the editor used for deletion was that the article linked to various pages documenting other artists. These links existed because they were previously requested by another editor who found the links necessary for the Buddy Society page to exist. These links, as well as the above mentioned adjectives, may or may not be a part of Buddy Society's page without affecting the information provided by it. Please review this deletion and provide any information you may have on how Buddy Society can be a part of Wikipedia once more. Thank you! Crystalroseluv (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (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 my second time putting this article through deletion review, the last time dating back to September. Since then, I have found a number of magazine publications and added them in my userpsace for subject: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. Here are the following links: [68] [69] [70]. Proving that her acting career has received some coverage. If this fails notability, I truly give up on trying to have this subject overturned. QuasyBoy 21:21, 5 November 2010 (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. |
Not given enough time after relisting for debate. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I think there was not enough time,room given after relisting it for debate.It was relisted yesterday,and as someone tried to abuse the editors,did repeated vandalism,I think the discussions closed immaturely and the Delete decision was taken.I tried to talk with the admin who closed,but his page shows that he will be away for 10-14 days and hence creating this page.I'm just looking for more room for discussion,as closing the discussion,even before something was discussed(after relisting) seems little odd. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (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 should be restored, because she is well-known in the industry and I think the admin made a big mistake deleting this article with no reason. She hasn´t won a award yet, but she has 1 nomination, is a Penthouse-Pet, worked for all big companies in the business. She even has a film named "PPV-3111: Carli Banks J/O Encouragement 4". So these are all facts that weren´t recognized. Look to the german article, then you can see the relevance clearer. By the way, the first deletion was a joke, because it should be keeped, and the 2nd deletion built up on this deletion. And my 2nd article was much better then the first one. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (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. |
On October 22, Black Kite (talk · contribs) speedily deleted this article, which I had created the day before, following a discussion on AN/I. I now realize that there were BLP issues, however, the deletion by Black Kite is problematic, particularly considering the edit summary IAR deletion: probably a sock of a banned user; probably something that needs to be dealt with via Wikinews; if I am wrong, please DRV. I am not a sock but an experienced editor in good standing. This suggests that the deletion was carried out hastily and without due diligence. Following this WP:BLP/N discussion [72], it was agreed that the title was problematic and I understood that the article had BLP issues, and I pledged to address them all. However, that discussion seems to have fizzled out. What am I asking here is that the article be undeleted and userified to my namespace under the agreed-upon title of "Death of Aristotelis Goumas", so that I can work on the BLP issues, which can be easily addressed. If the article is undeleted, I will work on the BLP issues immediately. The topic of the article itself is not in violation of BLP guidelines, and I believe notable enough to warrant an article. If notability is an issue, that should be discussed in an AfD, but either way the article shouldn't have been summarily deleted without community consensus. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (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. |
User:MuZemike directed me here, so I will use my same reason I used at the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion page. Article was covering a very notable underground band who just released an album on Nightmare Records, who are distributed by RED Distribution, which is a branch of Sony Music Entertainment -- is this not a notable indie label situation, according to No evidence from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC. No recordings on major labels or notable indie labels.? This band's album also charted at #13 on Amazon's Bestsellers Chart under the 'Hard Rock & Metal' category, which I figured was a form of a national chart (which you can view at Altered State (Tetrafusion album) under the References section). Both of these band's albums have received non-trivial reviews on just about any music review website (which you can view on the recently deleted pages at Absolute Zero (Tetrafusion album) and Altered State (Tetrafusion album). This article was NEVER updated with anything resembling WP:COI and was only updated with notable, objective, and neutral information. There are plenty of bands who have Wikipedia pages that are even less resourceful than this one that never got deleted, such as Scale the Summit, who are also distributed by RED Distribution just as Tetrafusion are. Animals as Leaders only has two references as my article did, both even from the same resources (Blabbermouth.net and a local newspaper publication in their respective hometown). Periphery (band) lists a ton of very non-neutral information that has absolutely no references or sources to back it up, going on about who left the band and what guitar pedals they use...how is this viable information compared to what my article contained? Why are pages like these still existing when this one was deleted, although EVERY sentence on Tetrafusion's page had a source to quote it from? The band isn't quite large enough to have a lot of options for sources, but has enough to establish a solid level of notability in my opinion for a small, basic article with minimum information. The sources they do have are perfectly valid, while few. Every single statement on the article was quoted by another source, leaving practically nothing in the article that I posted from my own knowledge. I only referenced other articles in my claim because that is what I used to construct this one; they proved to be active, working articles, so I molded them similarly to have a starting point...I used the article wizard as well. Please restore the article and do NOT delete it, it has been attended to with totally objective information and care. This article also went unedited and undeleted for a year, so I don't understand why anything has changd 18 months later? Thanks. Msm041 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (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 AfD was nominated by someone who was wikistalking me and nominating pages for deletion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly). It was on AfD for over 2 weeks with no interest at all. I decided to ask the Article Rescue Squadron if the page could be improved any - and they contributed even more sources. Immediately after this, two people came out of nowhere and voted Delete, with (in my opinion) weak reasoning. (It has been suggested that these people may have noticed this AfD only because I posted on the AfR board - would this count as reverse CANVASsing?). The day after these delete votes were posted, and in the midst of discussing the merits of the reasoning, the AfD was closed as DELETE. I don't believe any consensus was reached in the less than two days of active discussion. During this time one of the delete voters also AfD'ed another article I created, without even notifying me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. I'm not sure what's going on here, but regardless of all this strange activity, I don't believe consensus was reached.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure why it needed deleting to begin with since it was the same format and type of content of scores of other exonym articles that all survived a previous mass deletion attempt (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms) and the arguments for deletion were a caricature of the article's actual contents. A vast majority of the entries were true exonyms and not the phonetic transliteration type such as "Şikago" (Chicago) cited. Since retention of exonym lists at Wikipedia has been the rule, I ask that either the article be undeleted or permit me to restore an article on Turkish exonyms similar to that which was deleted. The closing admin, User:Angr, restored the article to my talk page here but asked that I discuss it here before restoring it to mainspace. — AjaxSmack 05:03, 1 November 2010 (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. |
Illegitimate close: non-admin close by a new account, closed as "no consensus" despite zero keep votes (and a growing consensus to delete). Possibly a sock account? Hairhorn (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |