Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 1-15
Flash Flash Revolution – Overturn and delete – 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The result is pretty clearly delete due to no reliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Genmay – Speedily closed, repeat nomination without new information – 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
numerous assertions of importance in the article. with plenty of sources as cited before Mrtwo 12:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tourette's Guy – This isn't going to change, unless someone comes with a good article on it. Please come back when/if you do. – 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Just Cause 2 – Deletion endorsed – 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
When this article of a future video game was created, it had absolutely no sources. Predictably, somebody nominated it for deletion. The first few votes were for delete. Then I found 4 sources confirming that this game is in fact in development. The main source was an interview to Swedish magazine Kong by the the CEO of Just Cause maker Avalanche Studios, Christopher Sundberg. [1] In the published interview, he confirmed it was actually being made and gave some more information on it. Not alot, but it was certainly a confirmation. The source article was credited to reporter Jonny Knutsson. At least one vote was changed to "keep" after this new information was added. But the closing administrator chose to delete this citing there were no "reliable sources". I very much disagree that the company CEO and the magazine he interviewed with, along with credited reporter Jonny Knutsson, is not a reliable source. I tried being bold in recreating this article with this source, plus two more English language ones confirming the first [2][3], (plus some nice wikification) but it was deleted and locked by the first closing administrator. I respecfually disagree and feel this article of a sequel to a very popular game should be re-created. --Oakshade 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Horseshoe Theory – Deletion endorsed – 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Mavis McClure – Endorsed, this need to be brought up at Wikimedia – 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Stephen Rodefer – Endorsed, this needs to be brought up at Wikimedia – 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) – Prodded article restored on request, now at AfD – 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to request the restoration of Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) to Wikipedia. I have spent hard work on this article and would not like to see this go to waste. Please consider putting this article on the articles for revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyville (talk • contribs) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Uncle Sherm's Visit – Deletion endorsed – 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This episode of SpongeBob SquarePants exists. I provided a neutral source (in german) on its talk page after it was deleted and protected. Kitia 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Jewish-American businesspeople – Deletion overturned and relisted – 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
The original vote was here with just three votes: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#American_businesspeople_by_ethnicity Category:Jewish-American businesspeople was created to break up Category:Jewish Americans into smaller pieces. It was NOT created to break up Category:American businesspeople into smaller pieces. By changing the category all the people lost their Jewish identity, and as below, their national identity. The change was made with just three votes and was made without thinking of the consequences of the change and the loss of information it would create. Now each article has lost their inclusion in Category:Jewish Americans. Important moves like this need much more debate before enacted. I suggest a minimal number of votes before decisions are made. Category changes are much more complicated than article changes because there are supracategories and supercategories that have to be considered. Remember if the category is a double intersection, you can't replace it with a single category, it has to be replaced by two categories. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Same for:
Jewish Americans is currently divided into the following, so why is "business person" not acceptable:
African Americans are identified as:
| ||||||
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Graal Online – Deletion endorsed – 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn and Undelete. This article does not require deletion so long as it follows Wikipedia Guidelines. It deserves a place in Wikipedia. Also, this was just speedy deleted simply because of the past, while it had no conflicts with the Wikipedia rules. RedKlonoa 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
E-Sword – Speedily closed, deletion was endorsed yesterday – 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn and undelete This article was originally listed for deletion as "non notable" and not conforming to WP policy on software related articles. During the original delete debate several assertions of notability were not backed up by necessary references. This has subsequently be rectified. During an initial delete review a number of references for notability were provided. Many more were obvious from Google (>40000 listings and many just as required. I therefore undeleted the article, started to insert such notability information (reviews etc) and add more - as I said google is full with it. The article was again deleted by another admin, who felt it should go first go through another review. Given that even the review said that the article may be recreated with actual references - which I was starting to provide - I did not hold this for necessary, but I am happy to submit to process. Summary : the software is notable, and the necessary references are provided. This should be sufficient to satisfy policy Refdoc 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Template:Footballdatabase – Deletion endorsed – 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
i don't knoow why afd became tfd and not cleanup, the template is useful for create external link for some footballer. Matthew_hk tc 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
PocketGPSWorld.com – Nomination withdrawn – 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The Keep reasons were based on the notability of this site - it is referred to in most articles and websites on GPS systems. There was also a majority (5-3) for a Keep. The closing admin overruled this based on "the lack of sourcing in this article, and the quality of the article itself". Neither is a ground for deletion against the concensus. I should welcome a quality threshold, but that is for another day, and it is not a deletion reason. Inadequate sourcing (as opposed to being unverifiable) signals the need for editorial action but not deletion. Yes, this is a poor article that needs a thorough cleanup but procedurally it should not have been deleted. Overturn and Keep. TerriersFan 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Penumbra (game) – Deletion endorsed – 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article about Penumbra has been deleted before because the game was only a tech demo. Since that deletion (and the article's recreation), Penumbra has expanded into a full commercial game that has received the mention and interest of major gaming websites such as Gamespot and IGN. It is possible that the game will be digitally distributed on Steam: a major market for gaming. The full game is significant enough to warrant its own article. The focus of the article as of now is on the tech demo, but it could easily be changed to place the emphasis on the full game being developed. I also think it's incredibly unfair because the second deletion was only a proposed one. The template said to remove it if any reason was seen as to why the article should be kept (there was no actual AfD involved). I brought the argument up on the talk page and removed the notice, and a few hours later, the article was deleted. That aside though, I still think the article should be remade to focus more on the full version of Penumbra. ShadowMan1od 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:SombatMetanee.jpg – Overturned and restored – 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}} and included in the article Sombat Metanee in the infobox. It was flagged by User:Chowbok with a {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, which I then disputed. Through that process, however, I learned that the use in the article was indeed not fair use, so I moved it to a section of the article that detailed the actor in the era depicted in the photo. That was "not good enough" for User:Angr, who then deleted the image. I disputed this on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, and Angr offered some helpful suggestions about how to improve the article so that the image might be kept. Those improvements were made and a new fair-use rationale for the image was crafted. Angr then made a subjective judgement about the photo and asked if a different image could be used. I accommodated him by offering an external link to another image, but it wasn't good enough for him, either. I then offered a link to several images that he could choose from, and that's when his responses ended. So I've brought the issue here, seeking a resolution. — WiseKwai 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
VirusBurst – Keep closure overturned, relisted at AfD – 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I weighed into this AfD thinking that it was a straight-forward delete: No evidence of notability was presented, and my understanding is that editor testimony without supporting evidence is tantamount to a naked vote and will be disregarded. A quick breakdown of the participants:
Whatever way we cut it, this looks like a clear delete to me: Nose counting (spit) give three-to-one in favour of deletion if you're into that sort of thing, and argumentation shows that the only evidence presented for keeping was Google hits, something the person who made the argument recanted. WM suggested I re-nominate it when I raised it with him, which I'd prefer not to do because a) This nomination has a clear outcome to me, b) The stigma of a renom leads to knee-jerk keepage often enough, and c) I can't create the sub-pages anyway.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) – Nomination withdrawn – 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Moving here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Purpose of the temporary restoration - MustTC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Darcy Burner – Nomination withdrawn – 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Legal Medical Advisor – Deletion endorsed – 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page has been edited to comply with wikipedia TOS lpritchard 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nonsense Humor Magazine – Deletion endorsed, article userfied – 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted citing "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I would suggest that a college humor magazine that has published for more than 23 years, providing critical and alternative analysis of society and its publishing university, is significant. Article has autobiographic tendencies, but that's an argument for editing, not outright deletion. Toomuchjoy 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Send it my way; the magazine has indeed won awards, been covered in other reliable sources, etc., and it will be simple enough to recast the last current info in the listing to reflect that and its relevance in a larger scope. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006
Since the magazine is typically just referred to as "Nonsense," try a Google search of "Humor Nonsense Hofstra" and you get over 9,300 Google hits. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006
Ok, below are a few from Newsday that I was able to dig up on short notice. Also, the magazine was awarded "2nd place, Special Interest Magazine" by the Society of Collegiate Journalism in the mid-80s (I'm still digging up specifics on that), has appeared in The Joe Bob Report. More to come if needed. Newsday articles, letters to the editor, etc. regarding Nonsense: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100187141&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104078480&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104782470&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104781543&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=49254948&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100891649&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100191828&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD Coverage of when MIT plagarized Nonsense: http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_110/TECH_V110_S0615_P002.pdf Toomuchjoy 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Catholic League argues with Nonsense in The Catalyst, a magazine for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/1997_catalyst/197catalyst.htm#Anti-Catholicism%20Hits%20Campuses Toomuchjoy 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
These college humor magazines--
-- all have Wikipedia entries, but haven't been around as long as Nonsense, which was founded in 1982; thus it seems the requirement of "a long run" is arbitrarily enforced (I might politely add that allowing an entry purely because a publication has been around for more than 24 years doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the publication). Meanwhile, judging a publication based on "popularity on campus"--which Nonsense always has been (Vault.com characterizes it as "a student favorite" here: http://www.vault.com/survey/school/college/Hofstra-University-social-life-74210.html ) --contradicts the argument that the publication has to be judged based on its relevance to the world at large. Toomuchjoy 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense Humor Magazine was listed prominently in the The Directory of Humor Magazines and Humor Organizations in America (and Canada) 3rd Edition. Published in 1992 by Wry-Bred Press. Nonsense was listed and sold by Spy Magazine in its December 1991 issue. "Spy Humor 101, Go Back to College for a Few Laughs". Spy got enough of a response to the listing to start buying advertising in Nonsense itself. Heyitsal 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The most recent, up-to-date version of the article--which is NOT the one mirrored around the web--had been updated substantially in November with a lot of facts, figures and information, in order to make it more of a comprehensive survey of the magazine's history. Please don't base your opinion of the listing on the meager (and inaccurate) version still floating around on the web. Toomuchjoy 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Blue Dot Inc – Deletion endorsed, new version created and listed at AfD – 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
G11 does not apply here. The purpose of the article is to describe a company, not promote a company. Further, the company is notable by reference to the cited independent news sources covering Blue Dot. I feel it was quite rude to have the article summarily deleted with no discussion; the article was obviously well structured, informative, and undergoing a process of improvement. Mike Koss 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Barse – Deletion endorsed – 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_REASON 193.1.172.163 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The term "barse" referring to the bit between the balls and the arse has been deleted 6 times from Wikipedia. It is a term I as an Irish person regularly use. I did not make it up. All my friends use it. People I don't know use it. I have met English people who use it. It seems to be a well used term in England and Ireland, and was probably coined on television. Reasons for deletion have included "hoax" "complete load of arse" etc. While it may be a vulgar/humourous term, it is certainly worth having a look at, unfortunately I do not have the time/resources to do this. I am responsible for the last article (my first on this site) and can't help but feel frustrated by the situation. Perhaps instead of googling the term you could use a blog searcher to search bebo or myspace for "barse". It is a part of modern culture, I am sure of it.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Transition Video Magazine – Prodded article restored on request – 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
proposed deletion This article was deleted with the following reason - 05:17, 16 November 2006 Crzrussian (Talk | contribs) deleted "Transition Video Magazine" (Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 November 2006). I propose reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.44.65 (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sorin Cerin – Speedy deletion overturned, AfD optional – 06:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted on December 3 with conclusion: "Deletion endorse among established editors" because the article was very poor in information.After that time we recreate another article,with more information and now we beleive that article is good to be in Wikipedia.The new article was deleted on December 11 with conclusion:"the article must to go first through deletion review again"Alinaro 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Armeniapedia – Deletion endorsed – 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. If the deleting admin believed there was no assertion of notability as stated in the deletion log, then he or she should have listed it immediately through AfD, which is standard and proper procedure, rather than delete unilaterally without discussion or notification. metaspheres 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Freedom Imaging Systems – Deletion endorsed – 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides? See also: [16]
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Circle Square Ranch – Restored by deleter – 06:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Not a commercial page, only meant to inform viewers about the company. It's a non profit organization, they don not advertize on wiki. I was a volunteer there onece just thought i would make a page, cause i love wikipedia. If I broke a rule please explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.163.100 (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Just Dial Communications – Deletion endorsed – 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version. Thanks for the comments, I will rewrite the article with references explaining why the company is not just another communication company, but an organization which should be included in wikipedia pages.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG – Deletion endorsed – 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing. Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it. Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything. Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:CRIIRADmap.gif – Deletion endorsed – 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Template:User UBXEssay – Status quo endorsed – 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Inappropriate Application of T1. Cyde claims that this is "divisive" which is just a thinly veiled excuse to force another userbox to User space. The template and the essay that it refer to are intended to help editors think about the userbox discussions in an informative, albeit somewhat humorous, fashion. This template and its inclusion on user pages is not divisive, but conciliatory. It has done a great deal of good in bringing people to see each other's points of view on this Wiki issue more openly. Forcing this particular template to user space will lessen the effectiveness of the discussion because several of those involved in the discussion believe that this is exactly the sort of template that should be allowed to remain in Template. Forcing them all to User is inflammatory in and of itself. In any case, a speedy delete per T1 was rushed and probably inappropriate. NThurston 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Users can put whatever categorization they prefer in place of "Centrist." --NThurston 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Remember this is about process, not necessarily outcomes. The question is whether Cyde should have used Speedy Delete (T1). In my opinion, T1 was mis-applied. At a minimum, this should have gone to MfD, where a discussion about Template vs. User could have taken place. As is, Cyde is imposing a userfication that may or may not be justified, and this case in particular shows why that imposition is not appropriate while the discussion on userboxes continues. --NThurston 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion – Undeleted with no objection by deleter; MfD optional – 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
I'm shocked that the page was deemed inflammatory, when I didn't disparage anyone but am just stating what many pro-choice people believe, that we're pro-life, too. If the page is T1 then so is every pro-life page that is against choice, b/c they're saying we're against life. I'd also have liked a notice on my talk page about the deletion and about my "inflammatory" behavior, because if I'm guilty of such behavior, I should be warned against it. Xiner 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- TexasAndroid 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Halo2Leagues.com – Deletion endorsed – 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page is not spam, we are posting information about a free leagues website. If MLG has the right to a page we should also have that same right. CBTS Pennywise1 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Fixity of the species – Deletion endorsed – 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was originally called linnaean lawn when it was proposed for deletion. After being moved to fixity of the species, a more commonly used name, and more was added to the article, it was not reconsidered as a legitimate article by the many who agreed to delete the article. The article now meets all the wikipedia criteria (although, much more can be added). Furthermore, some who agreed to delete the article appeared to be confused as to the difference between "merging" and "deleting". Pbarnes 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ned Raggett – Speedy deletion overturned with consent of deleting administrator – 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was speedied per CSD A7. The article contained an assertion of notability, however tenuous (major contributor to All Music Guide), so I feel the article should have been prodded or listed at AFD instead, to give editors a chance to clean up the article and attempt to make a stronger case for inclusion. The subject has had multiple articles published in a major newspaper (Seattle Weekly[17]), and as a significant contributor to All Music Guide (over 2000 reviews) his writing is widely quoted and reproduced with attribution by sites that use AMG metadata. I've written a draft stub that attempts to make a case for notability. --Muchness 04:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Pingus – Undeleted in light of new evidence, AfD optional – 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Linux game. Has been mentioned in many industry publications, online and offline, e.g. linux.about.com, UnixReview.com, CNN.com. It was Game of the Month [18] at the Linux Game Tome, arguably the most notable online Linux game website. If we have any Linux open source games at all, then we should certainly have Pingus -- it is among the most well known ones. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingus did not show any consensus to delete.--Eloquence* 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tourette's Guy – speedy endorsed due to repeated previous endorsements and no new evidence presented. – 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
(note: an anon misplaced this on the December 5th page; I've moved here, Patstuarttalk|edits 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC))
I propose that the article for Tourette's Guy be reinstituted for the following reasons: 1. He is a famous person. 2. HIs website has sparked an internet phenomena, with many people visiting his the site to watch the videos of him in action, parodying his videos on YTMND, and putting his stuff on YouTube and other video-sharing websites. 3. Similar internet phenomena, such as "O Rly?" and "Leroy Jenkins" have their own Wiki pages. 4. He has appeared on an MTV commercial. Moreover, any offense taken by those who think he is "faking" his illness and alcoholism ought to be disregarded, specifically on account that many offensive articles are to be found on Wikipedia. Certainly, if David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, not to mention a Cleaveland Steamer, have wikipedia pages and are not banned for the offensive content, Tourette's Guy can have his own? 69.22.252.216 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Anonymous
It is most certainly verifiable. The man's website routinely adds new videos of him doing stupid things and his works are widely dispersed over the internet. His existence as a subject of a series of videos about his antics is grounded in fact and this so much can be seen by simply looking at said videos. Moreover, a search on Yahoo for "Tourette's Guy" brought up over 9000 results. This is a level of notority worthy of mentioning on an Encylopedia, specifically when we have articles on Japanese anime characters, professional wrestlers, and webcomics - all equally as trivial as the Tourette's guy. There is simply no sensible reason why Tourette's guy should not be included in a small entry on Wikipedia.69.22.252.216 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)(Anonymous).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Rachael Ray Sucks – Speedy deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AfD on the above article was speedily closed by Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the explanation "NN blogs (it's on Livejournal) and attack pages both qualify for speedy deletion". Regarding the non-notability: the article asserted that the site was covered by Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today. Those are all "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", which means that the article met WP:WEB. Whether the site is hosted by LiveJournal is immaterial. Rachael Ray Sucks also didn't qualify for G10 because it was not an attack in itself: it merely reported an attack site. Writing about an insult does not repeat the insult. This means that the article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I request reopening the AfD, to assess some kind of community consensus. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Mandarin emperor style dildo – Endorse; review is obvious trolling – 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
widespread pornographic usage I believe this article should be undeleted. The mandarin emperor style dildo is being featured in more pornography and is for sale in numerous sex shops. 128.233.151.203 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Heather Poe – Deletion endorsed – 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
0942 PT Dec 9, 2006 Heater Poe is the life partner of Mary Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney). It was announced this week that they are expecting a baby. She is mentioned several times in the Mary Cheney article. When you pull her up in Google there is a lot about her and photographs of her. She is important as she is one of the first openly gay spouses invited to the White House for State Dinners - (I.E. The recption for the Prince of Wales). She also helped co-auther Mary Cheney's book "Mine Turn" and has several chapters about her in the book. Her name is [[]] in the article and when I tried to expand it twice it was remove as being NON REVLEVANT. I think anyone with so many google pages, on the front pages of newspapers and in a current best selling book is revelent and should have an article on them. (By the way the comments from the remover were really in combative and natsy tone) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfphotocraft (talk • contribs).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Big Brother - Big Business – Nomination withdrawn – 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article made a notability claim and was sourced, it was a valid stup and should not have been speedy deleted. --Striver 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
SheezyArt – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I closed the AfD for the article and speedy deleted it due to CSD A7, but since even those who supported speedy deletion mentioned it had a decent Alexa rank, and also due to requests, I'm placing this on review. Personally I still think it is a borderline speedy candidate. (Note that the article used to be titled Sheezyart, and was apparently copy-and-pasted to SheezyArt last year.) Kimchi.sg 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
R G C Levens – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I wrote a stub about the Merton Classics don, R G C Levens (Robert Levens) which was twice speedily deleted for notoriety. As he was well known at the time for his school edition of Cicero Verrine V how do I get the entry restored if such arbitrary methods are used? Alternately someone might provide a fuller entry----Clive Sweeting
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Yeouinaru Station – Nomination withdrawn – 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The votes in the AfD were Keep: 8 (2 "Strong Keep" and 1 "Speedy Keep"), Delete (including nom): 5 (no "strong" or "speedy") . The closing administrator cited no sources for the reason for deletion. It is the view of at least some of the keep voters that rail and subway stations are inherently notable and per WP:AFDP ("Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [21]"), Wikipeida consensus has agreed with that. With 8 to 5 votes in favor for keeping and per precedent, this warrants an undeletion.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of people whose full names are not commonly known – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This point was made by several people, including the deleting admin, and it's quite valid - if the list really was a list of "people whose full names are not commonly known", it would be too vague. However, if you actually bother to look at the list, you'll notice it's specifically based around use of the person's first name. That's why I reworked the introductory paragraph there, to tighten the criteria needed to list a name, and suggested, with some support, that it be renamed to "List of people whose first names are not commonly used".
If there's an article on Sean Connery, he's passed the notability test. Re: the original nominator's example: if there were no references, then all occurences of "Buzz Aldrin" in his own article should be replaced by "Edwin Eugene Aldrin". However, the article can use the Buzz name, since it has several references showing how frequently this name is used, even in official publications. (That's where the change from "known" to "used" becomes more useful.)
This defeats the purpose of the list. If you're trying to find people whose first names aren't commonly used, and you don't know exactly who you're looking for, what do you type into the search box? Quote from WP:LIST:
Indeed, there is a whole category, "Lists of people by name feature", which is then seperated based on the nature of the common name. This list is now a notable omission from the category. (However, List of people named after famous people seems far too vague, so I've prodded it).
Um, I haven't seen any comments in a couple of days - what happens now? If there aren't any new criticisms beyond those I've addressed above, can I get this list put on my user page to start work on those problems? Quack 688 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wiki Con Artist – Request for review withdrawn – 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Just Dial Communications – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lang Michener LLP – Deletion endorsed – 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article has been created and deleted twice, the first time for 'spam', and second for reading like advertising. The topic of the article is a Canadian law firm, one of the most notable in the country. One of its founders, Roland Michener, is a former Governor General of Canada, and they have had many other notable partners, including former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. I do not believe the current version of the article read like an advertisement, but at least two editors had already posted to the talk page offering to help improve the article before the deletion took place a few hours ago. I think the deletions were probably unwarranted in the first place, but there are editors who are willing to work on bringing the article up to scratch. Since the previous version (note the article creator's talk page) had also been worked on to make it more neutral and fleshed-out, perhaps that version could be userfied to combine the info from both? Anchoress 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Fortuna (philosophy) – Deletion endorsed – 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page refers to a contemporary social movement called the Fellowship of Fortuna which is internationally recognized though not widely written about. It seems to me that wikipedia is the place for people to find complete, unbiased information on this movement which is rooted in conepts of fortune and chance. like other 'religious' movements, i think it should be covered here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetologist (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Better Than – Deletion endorsed – 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
better than is a philosophical principle developed by the fellowship of fortuna. It is in wide use as a meditative tool. the information was procured by contacting the fellowship directly. links were also provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetologist (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of fictional rooms – Deletion endorsed – 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn. Numerous voters for "delete" did so under the argument of unmaintainably infinite, based on a lack of reading of the article's intro paragraph, which limited the scope considerably (fictional rooms in non-fictional buildings). This list is on par with any number of "fictional item" lists as available at Archive of fictional things and its child Index of fictional places, such as List of fictional buildings. However, the article topic doesn't fit in well with any other fictional place or item lists - for example, it would be out of scope for list of fictional buildings because it involves real buildings. Some proposed a name change, which I would also endorse if a non-wieldy one could be created. Furthermore, others endorsed deletion (ironically) because the article was too small; but initial size is a poor reason for deletion. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Help!) 07:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Bodo – Erroneous deletion speedily restored – 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted version was not the original version of the page; deleted version was severely vandalised version I created the article here a few days ago as part of my project to add African artists to Wikipedia; originally, it was about this man. Somebody came through after I'd written it, blanked it, and replaced it with "bodo is da bomb and you dont kare" or some such. This was caught, tagged for speedy, and deleted yesterday. I'd like to get the original article back, please, if at all possible. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Atlético Chorlton – Deletion endorsed – 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable football team in the Manchester area. No warning to user who created the page prior to deletion and so no idea who deleted it. Article provides statistical data up to date of the team in question and history of its creation. Adamwjeffers 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The White Rose Society (student group) – Deletion endorsed – 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable national group documented in media outlets. All self-promotion was removed prior to deletion. Article is important for the clarity of other articles such as White Rose and White Rose (disambiguation). Significant association with the original White Rose gives readers especially students a contact point for more information on the White Rose. For example if you wanted to see a play about the White Rose or become involved in activism similar to the White Rose there is only one organization that you will find, The White Rose Society (student group).Colinster 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Mer – Vandalized page speedily restored – 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It was deleted as 'patent nonsense' after having existed for almost one year; The discussion that is spread out between here and here also indicates that there has been a normal article at the page (can patent nonsense really be 'infinitely better' than other content of the same page?), so the only way I can explain the deletion is that someone deleted a vandalized page without checking the page history for an unvandalized version first. Since there is already a redirect to something else on the page now, it should subsequently be moved and changed into a disambiguation page, I suppose. - Andre Engels 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series and related articles – AfD closure endorsed – 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Before beginning, let me say that I bear no ill will towards the closer, who I believe was working in the best possible faith and should be commended for the amount of work put into this close (roughly 5-6 hours). However, I believe that there were multiple issues with the AfD process and a few with the closing that make this AfD invalid. Chronologically, my concerns are threefold:
In conclusion, and with all respect towards the dedication of User:Doug Bell, I believe that this AfD was flawed throughout its entire founding and execution on a fundamental level. A deletion discussion cannot be concluded without a valid debate. A debate cannot be conducted without valid arguments. Arguments cannot be given without valid evidence. Evidence cannot be gathered without reading the articles under discussion. This AfD made the most basic step of deletion discussion absurdly difficult, made it impossible to give a valid opinion, and generated nothing productive. Relist in a sane manner. --tjstrf talk 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) COMMENT FROM CLOSING ADMIN Doug Bell: (Here's why I got involved.) First let me say that the only personal stake I have in whether these articles are deleted or not is to have some sense that the considerable time I invested in closing this nomination was not in vain. To put it another way, I would have no basis other than the arguments presented by others to have rendered my own opinion in the matter had I chosen to offer my own opinion on the AfD as I have no knowledge of nor opinion of the articles in question. I'd like to address a few inaccuracies in the above request, and beyond setting the record straight on the process of closing, have little else to say on this as I have no personal interest in the articles themselves. The discrepency in the number of articles is entirely mine as I added the number 84 to the nomination. This number was based on the number of articles listed on the template Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons that was referenced in the nomination as the list of articles under consideration. In the process of closing the AfD and reading the articles I discovered that many of the separately listed articles on the template actually referred to the same article (multiple Gundam's being listed in a single article.) So the actual number of distinct articles was 59 instead of 84. As to the closing, I take considerable exception to the characterization of my evaluation. In fact, some of these statements make me question if the characterization is based on actually reading what I wrote or on Tjstrf's own personal assessment of how he would have closed the nomination. In particular, the attempt to establish equivalence between the rationales to keep and to delete. You are free to read the 156K worth of discussion to establish your own consensus, as I did, but to state that the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy and precendent are equilvalent is a misrepresentation of the facts. I spent considerable time and effort to not count !votes, but instead reduce the arguments of each side down to their core points and the strength of their positions in reaching my decision on closing this nomination. There was consensus between both the keep and the delete arguments, at least when an argument was presented, that matches the four points I make at the beginning of my closing statement which I'll repeat here:
These points were not generally contested on the nomination and by themselves lend considerable credence to just deleting all of the articles. The only real point of contention between the keep and delete sides of the discussion had to do with point #4 above. Even on this point, there was consensus, with about half the keep supports admiting that between some and many of the articles would qualify as the equivalent of WP:FICT "minor characters" and should not have articles of their own. So the main issue that separated the two sides of the argument was determining a) whether to delete all of the articles; or if not, then b) which articles to keep. My closing was based on what I judged to be the consensus of the keep votes for articles that could be supported by criteria that is in line with WP:FICT. Note that the majority of the delete opinions would not have kept any of the articles, but I tried to err on the side of keeping any articles that might have a claim to notability under WP:FICT. One last thing to note is that shortly after the closing I had two messages on my talk page, both from proponents to keep all the articles praising me on the manner in which I performed the closing (one even giving me a barnstar) even though neither of them got exactly what they wanted. So obviously Tjstrf's opinion of my closing is just that—his opinion. —Doug Bell talk 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
PERKEPIS – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
PERKEPIS is a notable society, since it is operating throughout Sarawak, catering the needs of Muslim students there. Pls reconsider deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed niz89 (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Neil Woodford – Deletion overturned, AfD optional – 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was originally deleted as it was claimed it was not notable. However, the subject has numerous online and newspaper references, controls Britain's largest investment fund, and has considerable influence due to his control of £12 billion of UK equities. Accordingly I rewrote the article with a few more references. However, this was listed for speedy deletion on the grounds of being 'advertising' (it was not, as I have nothing to advertise). I took out content that said the funds were first and second in their sector for performance over 5 and 10 years, as although this is as factual as claims about say Warren Buffet's investment performance, I can see some people might find this to be advertising. I also added in a little more content. Nonetheless, the article was added for speedy deletion as 'advertising' a second time. I added something to the talk page asking exactly what about the article constituted advertising, and beseeching somebody to provide some justification before deleting the page, as having to go through endless process to get the page undeleted is a little boring. However, the page was still deleted within a few hours, along with its talk page, and no one attempted to provide any justification to me what was supposed to be wrong with the content. The page's speedy deletion was clearly inappropriate, as the deletion template said that the page should only be deleted if the article "a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article", and this blatantly was not the case: no substantial rewrite was needed, and the speedy deletion was inappropriate. Nssdfdsfds 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. – Deletion overturned – 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This RfD was closed by User:Freakofnurture as 'delete', after the nomination and one 'keep' opinion (it's not clear to me which side the balance of arguments was on; remember that RfD has a lower deletion threshold than AfD). The redirect itself was not deleted for over a month; since then there has been an edit war over whether the redirect should exist or not, and whether it should be linked from WP:NCR (either linked directly as a shortcut, or piped to go to some other page). Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man currently has views in favour of the redirect which didn't come up at the RfD; presumably views against the redirect will also appear. Therefore, I'm asking for the RfD to be relisted so that the consensus of the community can be made clear. (As the redirect's purpose is to make a joke in the main WP:NCR project page funny, this could be seen as an editorial decision on that page rather than a deletion; in this case, I'm asking to allow recreation if the editorial consensus is to do that.) --ais523 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Limecat – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The the limecat article was deleted and protected from recreation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limecat shows six votes to keep and three votes to delete. For some reason it was decided that there was no consensus despite there being double the votes to keep than to delete, and was then deleted. Further, the only claims the few "delete" votes put forth is that limecat is "not notable," "non-encyclopedic," and "just a joke." These claims, which, once again, are in the minority, are unsubstantiated or irrelevant.
Because the articles of deletion votes showed a two thirds majority in favor of keeping, and because the reasons the minority of delete voters expressed are shown above to be invalid, I respectfully request that this article be unprotected and, if possible, restored to the state it was in before being deleted, with full history intact. If the previous quality of the article was not up to Wikipedia's standards and contained original research, this can be fixed, and I would be willing to clean up the article myself. Deleting it for want of quality is not a solution when there is a clear interest in the subject and people willing to improve it. If for some reason someone feels the article is subject to vandalism, it would of course be reasonable to protect it from unregistered users and new users, but please, at least unprotect the article and give us a chance to fix whatever problems existed. --stufff 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Moon Ball – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
SpeedyDeletion? Inviso 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) "15:09, 2 November 2006 NawlinWiki deleted "Moon Ball" (g1 a1 wp:not Moon Ball is a game of skill. It is not only hand eye skill but a game of brains and deception. Moon Ball is played with the players choice of ball Ex: tennis ball, raquet ball, lacrosse ball ect. The choice of playing area is also the player)"[28] I see no reason why the artice was deleted, nor can find any discussion for deletion in the del review archives. I am requesting that you store the page, and check the logs to see that vandalism has occured in the past, which I have restored from computers at school and home.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Floro Fighting Systems – Deletion endorsed – 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I orginally wrote the page and I did it badly, it was quite spammy. Page has been reformatted to follow Wiki guidelines, and includes references and annoted sections. With the proper formatting and references I would ask that it be overturne. Marcdscott 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
8mm Fuzz – endorse deletion without prejudice – 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am not entirely sure why this entry was deleted; it actually easily met some of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music) page WP:BAND. It specifically meets the following with ease: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. The following features in the Boston Herald are great examples: [29] [30] as well as the following feature interview in Boston's Weekly Dig: [31] Both of these sources are considered noteworthy by Wiki's standards. It was particularly strange as the order of said criteria changed in the course of said AfD debate, causing one third-party editor to turn against his initial decision of "keep". Quite honestly, none of the editors seemed to address the criteria that was suggested as being legit (as noted by two other editors). Also, Rule 7 may also be relevant; 8mm Fuzz are a visible and active part of the Great Scott scene that also produced such worldwide touring acts as Protokoll. Psilosybical 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
University Hill Elementary School – undelete without relisting on AfD – 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article survived an AfD on 25 September 2006. However, reviewing the deletion log, I see the article was speedy deleted per CSD A7. I do not think that A7 should apply to schools (in fact, its application to companies seems to be an end-run around G11, which itself has been debatable). While my opinion in the AfD was "delete", I can abide by the consensus. An article that has undergone an AfD discussion, in which notability was consider, ought not be speedied so soon thereafter. Agent 86 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) – Nomination withdrawn – 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Zanta (now moved to David Zancai) – Speedy deletion overturned, sent to AfD - 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Zanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Allow me to start by refering all interested parties to Talk:Zanta#Proposed_deletion, where I responded to a prod tag placed on the article by User:Alkivar. I have created an entry here because I don't feel due process has been followed with the deletion debate on Zanta. I was not given opportunity to respond to User:Alkivar's concerns before the page was deleted. First of all, let it be known that the Zanta article is sourced, contains verifiable (and indeed verified) claims, asserts notability, and possesses a neutral point of view. The argument for proposed deletion is grounded solely in the issue of whether a subject of predominantly local interest can be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. I wish to take the opportunity here to respond to each of User:Alkivar's arguments in sequence, for the consideration of the broader community with the intent to reach consensus:
In conclusion: I refute the claim that the article should be deleted because it is of predominant interest to residents of Toronto. Local persons of interest are analogous to local places of interest; and unless the articles are poorly written stubs with no potential for future expansion, there are no absolute grounds for deletion on account of localized interest. Citing from Wikipedia:Places of local interest: "If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." The same spirit of law which presides over articles of local places applies to articles of locally relevant people. I submit that enough reliable and verifiable information exists about Zanta to write a full and comprehensive article about it, as evidenced by the progress of the article to date. It makes sense for the subject to have its own article, in spite of the fact that it is not of global significance at this time. Bottom line, although the subject of the Zanta article is not known world-wide it does not follow that he is non-notable. My argument is that Zanta is of relevance and interest to the largest city in Canada and that, since wiki is not paper, the mere fact of localized interest is not sufficient for deletion. Let me restate this: just because someone in the U.S. does not find a particular article notable, it does not make that particular article a waste of wikipedia's storage or any less relevant an encyclopedic entry. Thanks for your consideration, and I welcome the input of as many editors as possible in reaching consensus on this issue. BFD1 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
IPhone – Duplicate DRV. – 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
And I have re-deleted it as this discussion had barely begun and as of yet "rumored" is not a valid verification. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Critical Mass (band) – New version moved into mainspace, AfD optional – 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted per this AFD. Admittedly, there were more delete "votes" than keep "votes", but if one takes a look all the delete "votes" were made on the 24th of November. No additional comments were made until the 26th of November and all comments after that were keeps. One person who commented on the 24th returned on the 28th and commented to keep. The article has been restored and moved to userspace, so here's a diff showing the change that the article went through between the version that was nominated for deletion and the version that was eventually deleted [32]. Note that although the unreferenced tag is still at the top, there are references in the the deleted article. It's always being said that AFD is not a vote, and in this instance it seems that the article changed enough that any consensus to delete may have been outweighed by the change in the article, and the apperance of sources. I asked the closing admin to clarify the process he went through in deciding that the AFD showed a consensus to delete, and the only respose I got was a reminder to assume good faith and a suggestion to go to Deletion review. Perhaps I could have phrased my question better. Since being restored to userspace the article's creator and I have continued to work on it. Here is the article as it now stands. I would like to move this back into article space without fear of it being deleted again. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Blak Jak – Deletion endorsed, unprotected to allow rewrite – 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
You have articles on several other rappers with as much (or as little) info. Also, the fact that there was only one contributor does not make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. The rapper has certainly become notable as of late, with his two hit singles "Swervin'" (featuring Project Pat, who you do have an article on), and "Bobbin' My Head". His debut album, Place Your Bets, is set to be released December 19, on major label Republic Records. Also, you have this article protected, so no one with any notable info can create a page. I think this article should be undeleted, or at leat unprotected, so someone with more information can spruce up the page. Recreate, or at least unprotect. Tom Danson 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia – Overturned by slight majority, back at AfD – 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This AFD was closed as 'no consensus' by User:Glen S, despite there being a clear consensus to delete, based on both (spit) numbers, and, far, far more importantly, Wikipedia policy. Does WP:NOR get thrown out of the window if a few people make a fuss? Apparently, the answer is yes. Accordingly to many of the keep !votes, 'WP:NOR does not apply to this article', which is, frankly, ludicrous, and shows a basic failure to comprehend what an encyclopaedia is. Many more said 'it's not OR as it has references'. It was a synthesis of references to produce its own conjectured suppositions - which is, by definition, original research. This was a poor close, failing to take into account any kind of consensus in the AFD, and failing to consider the quality and validity of the arguments. Overturn and delete. Proto::► 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dekoy – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn 69.61.253.106 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This article was deleted as unnotable, however several of the rules from the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page WP:BAND would seem to apply here as defining the band as notable. Specifically "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. The following reviews would qualify - there are others as well. Side-line Music Magazine, a print and web magazine [34] Regen Magazine [35] 2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. As referenced in the wikipedia entry, Dekoy debuted with their first album placing on the Deutsche_Alternative_Charts. Additionally, it can be noted that Dekoy is very well known in the Cincinnati Area Futurepop/Goth/Industrial scene - such as it is. Rule 7 may have bearing as well.
Retrieving the DAC report now, I should have it within the next day or so.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ali Sina – Deletion endorsed – 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The administrator who deleted this page said the result of the vote was to delete, but I counted the votes and it was a tie.--Sefringle 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Traditional Britain Group – Deletion endorsed – 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
How can a minute group of four or five people get a reasonable information page like this deleted so quickly? The Traditional Britain Group is fairly well-known. People like Simon Heffer just don't accept invitations as dinner guests-of-honour for minor groups. The quip by one of its detractors that their dinner notices must be paid for is pathetic. Firstly, notices on the Court & Social pages are not always paid for (although they may have paid for theirs). It is at the discretion of the page editor. Secondly, all major dinners, memorial services, etc., appear on these pages under the same terms and conditions. It is not "advertising". I think you need to reassess some of you notability terms and conditions. Total and absolute reliance on the press is not enough. You might be hard-pressed, for instance, to find anything at all on the Chelsea Conservative Association, but it has been very active for over a century and is notable. I think you ought to reconsider this deletion which appears somewhat spiteful. Chelsea Tory 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
E-Sword – Deletion endorsed – 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Out of process clousre. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination), the only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. He raised notability concerns. Multiple comments called for keeping the article and addressed those notability concerns. Closed as delete due to no cited sources, but this wasn't raised in AfD & should lead to cleanup, not to deletion. As there was no consensus for deletion, it should either be kept or sent back to AfD to discuss any WP:V concerns. Karnesky 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[I didn't know it was a candidate for deletion until after it was deleted.] [I'd provide citations in this response, but I am on a 2400 baud line --- Yes, the speed that was considered fast back in 1989.]
a) e-Sword and The Sowrd Project are two different projects. e-Sword is gratis, but not libre. The Sword Project is Free Libre Open Source Software. b) There was a section that discussed some of the differences between the two projects, and reasons why they were often confused for each other.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Google Earth Hacks – Prodded deletion overturned and sent to AfD. – 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This entry was deleted for failing WP:V. Here are some well-known sources that reference the site and give it some credibility: Search Engine Watch [36] BBC [37] New Scientist Magazine (we're not mentioned in the exerpt, but we're in the full version) [38] New Jersey Star-Ledger (the article expired on their site - link is to a cache) [39] As for getting independent sources for the statistics about the site, I'm not sure how that could be done - site memberships, file downloads, etc, are not typically verified via a third party. Is there any other information I can provide that would help? Mickmel 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Chi Iota Pi – Prodded deletion overturned and sent to AfD. – 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |
---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Spanish Gibraltarians – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The thing I dont understand is why the article, which had been undeleted after a votation, was then deleted by Mackensen without a clear consensus to do so (9 votes to keep out of 19). Is this not against wikipedia rules? --Burgas00 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is a factual reality not the product of your imagination or POV. This consensus did not exist. Arguments, given in the AFD, in favour of deleting can be summarized as follows:
Examples of answers to such accusations given in the AFD: Keep: This article gives its references clearly and apparently only offers as its mandate the various meanings and usages of this ethnic identification term. The article almost certainly has NPOV issues (made clear by this discussion if nothing else) but secondary source references and limited mandate seem to show it is neither OR nor a hoax...so any problems are an issue for article editors to work out, not AfD. Regarding arguments above that "edit wars are inevitable" I'd only say we shouldn't delete decently researched articles because problems MAY happen in the future. -Markeer 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Comment I've had enough of people using AfD in order to promote a particular viewpoint. I think this should be a procedural keep, AfD is for deciding whether or not articles belong on Wikipedia, not a space to rant about articles you disagree with. Lurker oi! 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Keep as per RockMFR. As for "you're either one or the other, as Gibraltar is not in Spain" i must remind people that we have African American, Arab Israeli, etc... -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Where is the OR? I see multiple references, and a google search shows the term is used in media sources. Lurker oi! 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Keep It's a definate segment of the Gibraltar population. --Oakshade 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I am still convinced you are mistaking your personal views with a consensus on an AFD. --Burgas00 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Here is a copy of the references used in the article. A saved copy of the whole article can be found on my user page. Nevertheless, the main reason for undeletion, at this point, is procedural.
--Burgas00 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) --Burgas00 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
iPhone – Deletion endorsed, edit history restored behind redirect to Apple Computers – 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Apple Computer has actually trademarked the name iPhone in various countries according to this article http://10layers.com/2006/10/apple-filing-for-iphone-trademarks-worldwide/ that also contains links to the trademark offices. The iPhone article should at least contain this fact that the product name is being trademarked and a link to Apple Computer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novelist (talk • contribs).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts – Category merger endorsed – 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted by Kimchi because of merge discussion here.
I'm sorry for the rollback, but endorsing the merge without commenting on the merge that was no merge is too easy as far as I'm concerned. Francinne 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg – Image restored – 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted by User:Betacommand as part of a reckless purge of about 1500 images tagged as replaceable fair-use. This image, and many others were tagged with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, but the admin seems to have spent about 5 seconds per image and did not consider any fair-use rationale. See also Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Massive_Image_Deletion. Requesting Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Dgies 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Note this was subsequently redeleted by a different admin, but as an observation the image was tagged {{promophoto}} which has a very specific meaning and is frequently misused, I can't tell if that were the case in this instance since it had no source, so I can't check if the source was indeed a press pack releasing the image for publicity purposes. The image could also have been deleted for no source in due course... --pgk 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Evil albino – Edit history and talk page restored behind redirect – 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was deleted without consensus (only 4 total responses to the AfD, and one was even for merge); I was in process of posting this:
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ignatz Lichtenstein – Deletion overturned and relisted in light of new information – 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ignatz Lichtenstien was a notable author and former Rabbi who famously converted to Christianity around the turn of last century. His existance is scandalous to Judaism, but people should not be deleted from history just because some editors do not like their point of view. The editor who proposed the deletion called for just that (a y'sh as they say in Yiddish), and the administrator who closed this as a delete would be expected to share the same bias. Although when originally proposed for deletion, the existance of Ignatz Lichtenstein was only confirmable from unreliable sources related to Messianic Judiasm, who consider the man a heroic forbear, the author's existance and biographic details were subsequently confirmed by dead-tree sources dating back to 1894, including a famous Jewish author, Gotthard Deutsch, in 1917, and by reputable library catalog sources, such as those at Harvard. The closing admin seems to have just ignored all that. -- Kendrick7talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be the only source listed not of missionary origin, and it seems ambiguous as to whether this individual existed. If the "quotations from various Jewish newspapers" pertain to this individual, perhaps it would not be impossible to produce some of them. This would appear to clear the issue. In addition, this source appears to suggest that the distinct "I" and "J" initials may represent something other than a library scanning error. Perhaps not all of the material attributed to the "I" individual was originally claimed to have been written by him. It also seems clear that Deutch is a secondary source who never met the individual. He indicates his information comes from pamphlets etc. Perhaps there might be someone who did? Best, --Shirahadasha 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Isabella V – Deletion overturned and relisted – 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed delete by User:DakotaKahn as delete. Nom claimed it wasn't notable, one person claimed it didn't meet WP:BIO and 6 people said the same. One other said something about Wikipedia's "dream of hate and lies." It was demonstrated by two users to have widepread media coverage, destroying any argument that the subject didn't meet any notability or verifiability standards. Upon questioning DakotaKahn about the closing, the response: "Nine to delete-four to keep." This suggests a vote count, which is simply not how it's supposed to be done. Overturn and undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:Yamauchi.jpg – Deletion overturned and relisted – 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
File:Yamauchi.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Image deletion and undeletion procedures are an absolute joke. Whereas for prods etc, they can be speedily undeleted, especially if the closing admin or nominator missed some information. I saw that something was wrong, and re-uploaded a deleted fair use image, only to have it speedied again for not following "process" even though it never went through a proper deletion process anyway. But that's largely irrelevant, what is relevant can be seen on the Image talk page. Hiroshi Yamauchi was a long-time serving Nintendo president who presided over some great changes and growth in the comapny. Even in business, he was a private figure, as can be seen from the BBC3 "Inside Nintendo" documentary. He retired completely from business and the public eye in 2002. User:Chowbok seems to think that it's possible to upload a free image of this retired private individual, and User:Quadell agreed, deleting the image. User:Nihonjoe voiced some legal concerns and disagreed with whether it was replaceable, myself, I added new input to the private nature of Yamauchi, dismissed previous arguments dubbing him a "celebrity" and boldly re-uploaded a new photo. I was smacked down with process, and now I'm here. I do not think that it is possible to obtain a freely available image of Yamauchi and am asking for the undeletion of the image. - hahnchen 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
TS-MA2 Moebius – Deletion endorsed – 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
conversation seemed to be one sided. the article was removed because of in universe techno babble but we have other articles on scifi and fictional equipment that have content only fans will know and i see no resion to go on a witch hunt on pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs)
restore judging on he debate on the rest of the relater articles we should probably put it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.12 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 December 2006 |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
TS-MA2mod.00 Moebius Zero – Speedily closed (redirect), see nomination for main article – 00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
was removed with the article TS-MA2 Moebius over the idea of it being fancruft there are ways to cite these articles including the source material they come from there were some argument due to translation errors in fansubs and the translation of some of the manga in to English but the fans would like the chance to clean up the mess themselves so we ask that our articles be restored so we can repair them. fans of other scifi properties have gotten a chance for theres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 December 2006
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Pear Cable Audio Cables – Article restored and listed at AfD – 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Company that is not a Spam Entry. I would like to request that Pear Cable Audio Cables be considered for undeletion. The article was deleted, then reposted with the addition of 3 links to point out the notability of the company. This repost was also deleted. To address the complaints specifically: The page is factual material that does not make any biased claims whatsoever, ie the article does not state that Pear Cables are the best, or anything of that nature. The company is notable due to the fact that it has been written about by multiple independent organizations (3 links were provided). If Pear Cable Audio Cables does not qualify for notability, then virtually every company on the High-end audio page should also be deleted except for perhaps a couple of publicly traded companies. The complaint posted by Tubezone that complains about the price of 1 product sold by Pear bears no relevance to the subject of deletion. However, it does exhibit a bias that is exhibited by some who do not believe that high-end audio cables are worth the money they cost. This opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinion of virtually all respected high-end audio publication reviewers, but more importantly bears no weight on weither companies should have articles in wikipedia.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal – Deletion endorsed – 02:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism. ThisIsOnlyMe 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Salt the page to prevent re-creation, but perform a history-only undeletion so that people can look back through the page history if they really want to read the old pages. I wonder if this is a fair enough solution for such pages: this way it should keep both sides satisfied. --SunStar Net 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Megan – Unprotected, bare-bones dab page created – 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Old deletion happened here back in 2004. Since that time, many single-name articles such as Amy, David (name), Victor, etc exist. I believe consensus has changed and that a disambiguation-style page would serve the needs of the encyclopedia better than a deleted/protected page. Rather than acting unilaterally, I'm asking for a review here (at least one old revision contains something salvageable, that mentioned in the VfD). -- nae'blis 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of idioms in the English language (A) – deletion and userification endorsed – 06:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reading this AfD page is disgusting. There is very strong consensus to transwiki, yet the article was DELETED instead? Wikipedians are the ones that always complain that Wiktionary is chaotic and follows no process - doesn't that imply you are supposed to be diligent policy wonks? Why was process not followed at all, here? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Gimpsy, GoGuides, MusicMoz, Skaffe – Deletions endorsed – 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm trying to understand how a 6/6 !vote is being interpreted as concensus. Taking them as a batch may not have been the best course of action as some comments referenced specific articles and should not be weighed against others, which is always a danger in batching. --StuffOfInterest 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Vek'nilash – Deletion endorsed – 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure whether or not mobs have been discussed before - and whether they merit a page or need to be merged into a larger article. If this gets speedily deleted, i'll merge it into the wider article on Warcraft realms. Personally, I think this article should be kept - it's not only a realm but a mob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australian Matt (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |