Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 16-31
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted after it was improved after people requested it to have sources that confirm its notability. Article has sources and is under the criteria for a notable article and is supported by an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).
The improvements were made AFTER the deletion talk page was over.65.11.27.42 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually new evidence was shown. Check the links on the bottom the last one is new and it is by a reliable third party source on the topic.The minor changes were the only changes necessary and i believe that since it meets the criteria it shouldnt be deleted. It shouldnt be merged because there are also MySpace Secret Stand-Up shows. 65.11.27.42 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The criteria says it only needs one or more sources so it is in the criteria.65.11.27.42 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It says you need one or more nontrivial sources so as far as i can see bring it back.65.11.27.42 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
did you not read the comment above. But it doesnt matter anymore...Martini833 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) where the term is prominently displayed and defined in the 1912 Party Platform written by Theodore Roosevelt.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Dixie Mafia where the terms are used interchangeably in sources cited.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted using PRod:non-notable footballer according to WP:BIO, but the player although not playing for the senior national team, but still playing top level for Malta, although Maltese football may be at semi-professional level. And there is discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players on going. I put this not Deletion review, because it does not proper process of AFD to delete it under discussion. Per previous Afd results, please for top level football already notable. Ongoing discussion of Notability discussion should not became a reason of Current deletion. Here the player DOB and match record as of 2005-2006 season. [4][5] -- Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted as being non-notable, when it is clearly notable. If Dearcupid.org is not a reliable 3rd-person 3rd-party source, then what else is?? Out-of-process deletion. Kingshockaz 2000 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I started to write an entirely new article in accordance with all Wikipedia requirements. Please unlock the page so I could publish it. The page has already its versions in NL and PL wikipedias, only on EN is locked. Merewyn 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How about the sources I gave above? I have the sources for the article, so accordingly to your requirements this article should be restored. Please. Merewyn 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The log for this image indicates that it was taken by photographer Jeramey Jannene (a.k.a. User:Grassferry49, a.k.a. compujeramey on flickr), yet it was deleted as "no copyright tag". According to the url in the upload log, it is cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/100075920 which uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. If this is true, it should be restored and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Voting was fairly even, but a WikiProject stacked up votes of keep based on Ownership, resulting in a decision of "no consensus" by The wub. I am asserting that the closing admin should have based the decision on the strength of the arguments rather than on what appears to be simple vote count. Discussion was here. I am seeking an action of overturn and delete. After Midnight 0001 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was an established article before it was speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. The article did not meet this criterion since it asserted the notability of the company. In fact, MarchFirst got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise, and is a good example of a company which failed during the .com bust. See [8] e.g. While the article was far from comprehensive, it was not a speedy candidate nor should it be deleted via AfD. Rhobite 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This MfD was a mass nomination of user subpages used by some users to collect other users' signatures. The list in the MfD was almost certainly non-exhaustive. It was closed by User:IronGargoyle as, to quote the important bit:
Gargoyle became unable to enact the close and made this post (again, selectively quoted):
While this attempt at compromise is laudable, it is in my opinion unworkable. As I said at WP:ANI, the 100-edit barrier creates a 'reward' for editcountitis, which we absolutely do not want. It may encourage useless edits so that the user can get the reward book, or even so that they can get it back after it was deleted. If any admin tried to enforce the close they would probably find themselves in complicated conflict (what happens if the page is deleted, the editor then makes 100 useless articlespace edits, and demands it back?) with good-faith editors over something that really isn't worth it. I don't necessarily approve of these signature books but I definitely don't think that admins should be getting into conflict trying to enforce this unenforcable close, which is essentially a declaration of policy. Although it might seem an exercise in pointlessness to overturn a close where, because the admin left before enacting the close, hardly anything has actually happened (all but two of the links on the list are still blue), someone asked on WP:ANI if anyone was going to enforce this. Technically if the closing admin doesn't enforce a close, other admins should (see also CSD General-4) so we can't just forget about it. So this close should be overturned and considered as a 'no consensus'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nonsense. If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb. alderbourne 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Administrator who deleted this article did it without reasonables reasons Wadim 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted without consensus: vote was 9-7 but closing admin claimed 12-7 James S. 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
administrator's only reason was that the page constituted copyright infringement, which is simply not accurate. ABAORG 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys from all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his national activities as president, his involvement in the Clinton administration, his work for the Dukakis and Weld administrations in Massachusetts, his work as ABA judicial reviewer for federal court appointees, and for and his work with Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association. The ABA has received several inquiries already re: the deletion of the page (why it was deleted, how students and other inquirers can now access that information on President Greco, etc.) Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. We believe it to be a valid and important addition to the growing Wikipedia.org family of knowledge. Sincerely, J. Nichols
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was speedy-deleted per {{db-bio}}. The original content might have failed to assert his significance but he is a notable author. For example, Britannica has an entry for him[11]. Kusunose 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reason given was "and the only contributor was 'Zalman613'" However you did not even give a chance for anyone else to comment. 12.26.60.132 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Friendship Circle (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Friendship Circle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the reason clearly given there, no reason was given why that is not of major importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.60.132 (talk • contribs)
If you are an admin. than restore the talk page and you will see. The point that it said there was, that the organization is fundamental in changing societies look at the inclusion of special needs children. Knowing about that, through that post, is a part of people being aware of the this type of thought or at least to know that it exists in a large way. That explains clearly the importance and significance of the subject, the deleter does explain why that is invalid. 12.26.60.132 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Rogue result. Images have no encyclopaedic value, and are essentially textual content pretending to be an image. Last time I checked, we don't use images for this sort of thing (e.g. we don't use "File:Longbenton metro station sign.png" where "Longbenton" will do - particularly as there are implications for screen readers and users of large fonts). The closing admin decided that apparently despite the images being purely cosmetic, having no value, and the usability concerns, 3 ILIKEITs and a straight vote are apparently a consensus. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Nv8200p talk 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I know I have asked for this before, and I have noted your responses. You all said that the page led to nonsense, and what I claimed (that there was one a pretty informative article that was as good as any other article) was not true. (original request on January 13 2007) I know for a fact that somwhere in the history of the page you will find the version I was talking about. Full of true information about the movie, and quite a long article at that. tDCM is a very popular flash movie, and if you can find the proper version, I'm sure it would be a great re-adition to wikipedia! I am willing to work with an admin to halp him/her find the right version! Please contact me via userpage if you can help me get the proper page restored! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Because it is vitally important to the success of this website, it will attract many new viewers and it is a good contribution. Victorvondoom2007 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was listed for speedy deletion yesterday on grounds that the user that uploaded said she was 9-years old. This is not valid reason for speedy deletion. I removed the tag, but it was deleted anyway. The user's user page has also been deleted, for the same reason, but Wikipedia doesn't have any such policy - in fact that policy was explicitly rejected: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Nssdfdsfds 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The deleting admin's closure was entirely opinionated. Radiant! mentioned WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but I don't see any. However, several Delete votes (and the nomination itself) was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Out of all the rants and raves and almost identical votes, it should have been No Consensus as no consensus was formed. The closing admin obviously thought they had an overriding vote, and that is NOT true. Bowsy (review me!) 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Overturn: Per nomination. Henchman 2000 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. I can't really disagree with anything that Radiant's said, here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The company history is very notable. It is probably most regarded legend in the US fan history. Twin City Fan is the parent company of the oldest fan company in US history: Clarage, and the largest private industrial fan company in the US. More interestingly, the Barry family has successfully run the company for 3 generations. The first generation, Ben Barry is considered the founding father of moderm fan industry, who founded Barry Blower, Barry Chicago Blower, PennBarry, and last Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. 63.252.184.178 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Person is notable. I provided creditable press releases, magazine articles and websites and ASCAP records. Several Admins with hate for the group Profound Intent in which the Rapper-Songwriter is a member continues to vandalize the article and submit it for speedy deletion. The performer has recorded with Yung Joc, written for Tatyana Ali and has participate in a nationwide release in iTunes called Play the Field. His name is found in not just recent searches but content dating back two to three years ago. He is also well linked to singer Teairra Mari. I even tried to start the article over and improve it and they deleted it while I was in the process to ensure that it would be approved. I've seen articles on Wikipedia with no references at all, I still don't understand that. He is also signed to an indie label South Capitol Recordings which is parented by Block Entertainment. Once I made the label a link using [[ ]] those admins then went to the label page and added a deletion tag, however the article not started by me, had been there for sometime until I listed it has his label. I'm shocked the ASCAP article has not been put up for deletion. He and his group was briefly mentored by Kelly Price, I even supplied a picture.FranklinRose 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Does not fail WP:ATT like the closing admin said, also, it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists. Henchman 2000 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, depending on whether we overturn the other article here on Deletion Review. It would see reasonable to discuss them together. DGG 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted due to unverifiablity. I'd like to try and develop an article in userspace and then move it to mainspace. See User:Miltopia/Wiki vandalism - if an admin is willing to move it there, that would be wonderful. small note: In the event it's determined the old history shouldn't be uncovered, please do not delete my subpage, since it won't be posting of recreated content. Milto LOL pia 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn - no valid reason offered for deletion. Reasons offered were "not encyclopedic" which is pretty meaningless in an AFD debate; WP:BLP concerns, which are invalid because the article was sourced and it's very unlikely that someone is going to sue for being called heterosexual; "unmaintainable" and "too broad" which since the list only had a handful of entries is ludicrous on its face and "once gay, always gay" which is rank POV pushing. The !vote count was 11-7 which is hardly a clear-cut majority, especially in light of the poor reasons offered for several delete !votes (which should lead to those opinions being discounted) and the fact that one of the delete !votes actually supported the notion of having List of ex-gay people which is for all intents and purposes the same list. Otto4711 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article seems to have been deleted because WikyBlog's notability was questioned.
It is for these reasons of interpretation, popularity, and measurable user base that I respectfully request the undeletion of the WikyBlog article. Oyejorge 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was CSD'd under nn-bio after an afd. That was in September 2005. Since then, Star has released an EP, appeared with AFI and Godhead, made #1 on the iTunes dance chart [21], and been covered by the LA Weekly [22], Buzznet [23], and MusicEdge [24]. Overturn Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
GRBerry 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted as a hoax or nonsense piece. It isn't. I work in the motor industry and can confirm this car does exist. It's not in production yet. It's notable, ALL RIGHT!! Okay, can we discuss this now, pleeeease!!! Flakysnow-494 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
So... This is a bit confusing, but please bear with me. Determining if Flash cartoons and artists are notable is quite difficult: web rankings can often be misleading, and the popularity of certain things is hard to ascertain. Fred the Monkey, I think, fits into the category of "notable, but just barely". The cartoons are produced by the animation of a single artist, and it takes a lot of time to make a single episode. Because of this, updates are very, very rare. The site has been up for roughly 4 years, and there's only been 20+ cartoons. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Fred, but the last time I checked for a new cartoon was about three months ago. And since web rankings are obviously based on hits, we can guess that FTM will be lower than, say, Newgrounds. This isn't because less people know about it; rather, it is because FTM simply has less hits due to it being a single artist's work, as opposed to several. That does not, however, make it any less notable. Google search results would back this up. Several cartoons have been featured on Newgrounds, the Cubetoons article still exists (albeit due to being featured on IGN), and the Fred the Monkey forums are some of the most active I've been on. Captain Wikify Argh! 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the page was deleted too soon, despite having undergone major improvements and citing all its sources, including the main source on which it was based. The page should have remained for at least another day to allow for it further improvement, or at least be moved to my personal Talk page to improve it there. Currently, I have no backup of it, and simply can't re-write it as there were several sources and quotes that I found before and can't find them all again. It is better to restore the page, and I will re-write it even more. Note that the original request for deletion came only after the first, preliminary version of the page, whilst by the time the article got deleted, it was in its 2.0 version. To make the story short, if the page gets restored, I will quickly make it conform fully to all Wiki standards, it won't be very hard, since the article had a good collection of quotes and research in it, and will need only minor shortening and adjustment. --Wisconsin96 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Just wondering what happened to this article. I can't find it on the list of deleted articles and it's not even showing up under my account at all. I can't find any record of it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Javastein (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article has been deleted a number of times which really is rather stupid. Its also been protected from being recreated. Read the articles talk page to see how badly this deletion needs overturned. It was deleted orginally for unnotability but it cant be categorised under this, not anymore. They've been interviewed on XFM and performed live, as well as getting play on Radio 1, working with Bloc Party and Klaxons, currently on a headline tour, their debut single sold out on PRE-ORDERS they now have a new member and are widely considered the hottest new band in the whole of the UK by NME. Read the talk page, the people have spoken and they want this article. Now.--Shookvitals 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Shookvitals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article needs to be brought back, but renamed. A list of fiction that builds the fourth wall would be useless, as it would include pretty much all fiction. But a list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall - by first looking like breaking it but then not breaking it after all - is much more interesting. The AfD debate failed to consider this view. This should be undeleted and renamed to List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall oder List of fiction that restores the fourth wall. JIP | Talk 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The original review was closed for what the closing admin believed to be a necessary precaution based on possible office issues. The office has since spoken, and said they won't have a statement on it, so this is just to re-open it. Please see the original review for comments and concerns. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Admin chose to Redirect this. First of all, this was redirected without consensus, many more editors were in favor of keeping than deleting, and gave reasons for their position. Secondly, the article was removed for violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, while it is not at all certain that it does. Specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not ban articles on words, it merely says we don't have dictionary definition articles. Removing this article violates long-standing tradition, if not policy, that we don't delete articles which clearly and obviously can be cleaned up and rewritten into high quality articles, simply because they are not high enough quality yet. Why is Thou a featured article, while "The" is essentially deleted? Etymologists have written vast amounts on the word "The", and if Thou can be good enough to be a featured article, undeniably The could too, if anyone bothered to do so. Deleting an entire class of articles, those on words, automatically unless they are already high quality and well-sourced, will prevent us from ever being ABLE to improve them into high quality articles. This violates the basic process that a huge percentage of our best articles follow: low quality stub becomes ok quality stub becomes ok quality article becomes good quality article becomes good quality well sourced article becomes excellent quality sourced article. If you auto-delete a certain category of articles half way through the process, claiming that the problem is the process isn't finished yet, then how is the process ever supposed to get finished? If we want to ban all articles on words, then rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to say so, and start with Thou, a featured article, to prove we really mean it. Otherwise, this is an ok quality but not yet well enough sourced article, and we know full well there are reliable sources on this, here's one out of a large number which exist, do what we do in every other situation, keep and clean up. Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Further comment by me: It is possible that I have not fully understood the deletion review process, in terms of the way I wrote the above. As it may be that I am merely supposed to explain how the deletion process was not followed properly: This article does not warrant deletion due to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:WINAD does not insist on the deletion of all articles on words. The fact that Thou, an article on a word, is a featured article, is the clearest possible evidence of this. Since WP:WINAD only requires deletion of articles which can never be anything more than a dicdef, and this clearly can be more, then no deletion is required by WP:WINAD. As no other reason for deletion was ever given, and as the presence of reliable sources clearly meets WP:V or WP:A or whatever we're using today, and as there was no consensus to delete, deletion(redirection) was inappropriate and should be overturned. --Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe that the article was neither an "attack" nor an original research. It summarized the investigations of Russian and Polish journalists and activists. The article's editor attributed all the paragraphs to the respective publications. I cannot find a Wikipedia policy mentioning the term "attack". The omnipresence of scabrous comments in the Russian online forums is evident. There are known cases of impersonation of Russian opposition figures and distortion of their statements. I think instead of deleting the article, one should add more reliable sources to it such as court decisions. Perhaps, expanding the scope of the article to libel cases of vague origin would help. The article already included a reference to the work of Polyanskaya that mentions a court case of libel of Starovoitova. On my part, I have translated from Russian a bio stub of Nikolai Girenko, a murdered Russian ethnograph who testified in court cases against nationalist groups. I am mentioning this article here because it shows the scale and nature of attacks against the civil dialogue. ilgiz 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As for me, I've never received any mail or other messages about the article in question. BUT! Look what I got: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote." [34] They got a bunch of such reservations there. So, no rule for a decision huh? If you're against my admin POV, I'll invent a rule for you anyway? "Everything for my friends, law for my enemies"? Huh? My opinion: BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP! BTW, I should be reading rules regularly... Maybe some of admins that often block me would appear to be rulesbreakers themselves:)AlexPU 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The recent MFD discussion on GNAA's "war on blogs" led me to check whether several prominent weblogs I had heard of had been deleted as a result of such activity. I found at least two blogs that were deleted when, pretty clearly, they shouldn't have been. Note that these undeletions are not being proposed for personal political reasons; one of the blogs (Rottweiler) is far-right while the other (Chimp) is far-left. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's deletion discussion appears to have a solid consensus... but it turns out a lot of those voters were actually GNAA members, some of whom (including GNAA founder Timecop) are now banned from Wikipedia. The discussion on AFD should be re-run and kept free of single-purpose or bad faith accounts. The existing discussion can't reasonably be said to reflect an accurate consensus of Wikipedia users. Smirking Chimp's deletion discussion had two keep votes and two delete votes. That is far from a consensus to delete. It's one of the few redlinked blogs on the lists found on our Political blog article. There is a metric ton of Google hits. At the very least, both these articles should have a real, full discussion on AFD before they're deleted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This information does validly cite its sources and there is no false information on this page. All information on wikipedia on Christina McHale can be found elsewhere on the internet so there is no reason to delete it. This is not an invasion of privacy because this information is already out on the internet and it was cited properly and posted on wikipedia for a biography. Please undelete this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitiful (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This AfD was closed and renamed to Arlon Lindner. I wish to contest this renaming as it has created a massive undue weight problem with the controversy being about the only element covered in this article. If this would be overturned, I would gladly contribute to an article about Arlon Lindner (the person), but I cannot salvage this into an article with a completely different scope. :: ZJH (T C E) 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was OK and there was no problem reported with it. It contained the history paragraph of Cluj-Napoca article and wanted to develop that part. The article just disappeared without any notice. Roamataa 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Subject of the article is apparently, per a post on the wikien-l mailing list, suing the Wikimedia Foundation. Drove some new eyes to the article, where it was then deleted by User:Doc glasgow per BLP concerns. Cache shows a pretty decently sourced stub with perhaps some debate as to whether the quote was appropriate, but the deletion appears to be a pre-emptive strike. Barring any Foundation-level intervention, this needs a full hearing, IMO. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
According to press coverage and the official docket, the Wikimedia Foundation and 14 other defendants were sued on Friday by the subject of this article. The Office has not yet had an opportunity to provide advice or instructions on what action, if any, should be taken. I strongly urge that no further action be taken on-wiki or comments made here until the Foundation has had a reasonable opportunity to provide input. I strongly urge that this review be closed for now, without prejudice. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: A Foundation representative has requested that this article not be restored until they have completed their review. This should occur before this DRV is scheduled to conclude, but please do not close and restore early, no matter what consensus may be arrived at here. (This is from a Foundation representative on the mailing list; I am merely the messenger.) Newyorkbrad 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
You redirected to Gravitation a page that would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It was about Einstein's presently valid theory that implies that Newtonian gravitational attraction is an urban legend. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying general relativity (which then might be a 15 year project). And so to understand why Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real and why since Einstein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for. The reality of gravitational attraction, despite being not supported by science, is still very popular among non physicists and even many physicists and consequently they try to push their Newtonian POV, by using sentences like: "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases" (emphasis mine). This is what was done in Gravitation page and that's why redirecting Gravitational attraction to Gravitation that wrongly declares in its first sentence that "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" (emphasis mine) while according to contemporary science they don't attract each other, is like redirecting a page Origin of species to Scriptures since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures. The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page Gravitation itself since there are so many people who believe in real existence of the "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them, and not wanting to engage in an edit war, to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (reliable published sources). After deleting this page there is no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple (scientific) explanation for the illusion of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead. So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus (9:1 for deletion), since as Wikipedia's policy says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. [...] The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." A main part of discussion about the deletion in which all concerns against the page were answered and none of mine (as you may see) is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational attraction. Jim 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
New sources have been both uncovered, discovered, and/or published since the last DRV which contest the previous decision of non-notability. The current sources are listed below.
As per Wikipedia undeletion policy, this DRV should remain open for a minimum of five days after the date of this signature. cacophony ◄► 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Wikipedia must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an argument from authority. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_Notability Nick.ruiz 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Greetngs administrator, Please reconsider the following deletion for undeletion. Further, since this discussion between the administrator and I began, it appears that the adminstrator has additionaly taken the egregious liberty of deleting every external link I have entered for the journal Kritikos. I have only entered the external link on pages of relevance (e.g. postmodern literature, postmodern, critical theory, etc.) This additional action by the adminstrator is exceedingly unethical and unfair. The discussion link follows below. Many thanks for your consideration. User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III)
I accept the decision. However, Kritikos is an open acess journal, indexed in university library datatbases all over the world. Placing such a link in the appropriate article, as I have done, is a reference for further research--not linkspamming to a commercial site. I kindly ask that these links be restored. Thanks again for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion log says only "notability" - but this game is considered to be James Naismith's inspiration when he invented basketball. This should be sufficiently notable! (As well, I might have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an AfD for this article.) Ckatzchatspy 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There is no logic behind deleting it in the first place. The entire argument around deletion seems cenetered around wether or not the product has recieved notable reviews via newspaper, television, and other such media. Wether or not it has is irrelevant, as Retarded Animal Babies does in deed meet the criteria to have a Wiki site regardless of the content of ANY newspaper. I quote the third rule on Wikipedia's page for notability criteria. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Newgrounds.com is in fact an online publisher and it is in fact both independant of the creators of Retarded Animal Babies, and quite well known. It's also been featured in G4's "Late Night Peep Show" in an episode that originally aired on 7/18/2006. 69.235.157.150 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you Cris! I withdraw the objection. The page just isn't that important. I would hope that somebody will move the page, undelete it, or at least allow me to change it, but what I won't do is make a spectacle of it, or myself. Do with the page as you will, I trust your judgements. I will go back to patrolling new edits, and when I become bored, perhaps write another article. Be well everyone, and thanks for listening. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a free public domain image, published by the U.S. Air Force on their official website, of a female Military Training Instructor at a graduation parade. Image was used for approximately two months in the articles Drill instructor, Recruit training, and History of women in the military. On 22 March, the image was deleted pursuant to a WP:OTRS complaint. According to the deleting admin, the complaint originated with unspecified "people from the Air Force"; its general nature was that one of the persons depicted had undergone disciplinary action since the photograph was taken (explained in the edit summary of this diff by the deleting admin). This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the Air Force has since removed the photo from their official website as well. I've been over and over the image policy and can't find a policy justification for the image's deletion, unless it's WP:IAR. The image was in the public domain and did not contain any negative information about the individuals depicted. The deleting admin did not specify whether the complaint came from Air Force personnel in an official or unofficial capacity - either way, I can't find a policy supporting an undiscussed deletion for these particular circumstances. I'm no attorney, but I guess the question comes down to this -
Addendum - I should have posted this earlier, but, in case anyone wants to see what the image looked like, here it is as hosted on another website. RJASE1 Talk 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum 2 - The deleting admin has apparently gone on a WikiBreak and is unavailable to answer questions - can another admin get the ticket number and take a look at the complaint? RJASE1 Talk 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Still under discussion, information being added. Since its first entry, the very small piece on Laurence Scott has grown in information. It includes at least one citation, signaling that the subject has been written about by others. Further, more than one Wikipedian contributor had begun working on the article. Finally, "notability" is not a black or white issue. There is a spectrum of "notability" that should correspond to the length of the article. Laurence Scott is not as notable as, say, Albert Einstein, but Scott is more notable than, say, my postman. There has been nothing that any rational person would label discussion about deleting this little article. Thus, we should let it ride as other people add information to it. James Nicol 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I feel this was speedy deleted without sufficient discussion to reach consensus (only one reponse was listed). I have seen similar articles go through more thorough discussion, and in some cases kept, and I think an article originating from a major publication like this should be given a bit more discussion before it is deleted. 23skidoo 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a legitimate movie and the reason provided (Virtually everything in this movie is redlinked) seems odd to me? since when is it a reason for deletion. what are the criteria for inclusion of movies ? Hektor 10:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103812/ ImdB entry
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deletion log shows that this CSD "didn't match WP:WEB fully". I am appealing this CSD, as I rewrote some of this article, I know that I cited Edge (magazine) and Computer and Video Games (magazine) for certain passages. This did have third party sources, from very established reliable sources. It should have been prodded or AFDed. - hahnchen 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was preserved on the basis that, amongst other things, the article was well-referenced, and notability was demonstrated. The references have since failed to stand up to scrutiny - one even turned out to be a complete misrepresentation (details on the talk page). Turns out that this is in fact Just Another Mailing List after all. Chris cheese whine 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article on Jeffree Star should be restored because he is a major celebrity. Right now, he has an EP that is #1 on iTunes dance. There is an article on this EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, as well as it's single, Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?). Since both these two articles exist, I think this calls for Star's article to be restored. He has obtained celebrity status and has over one four hundred thousand friends on his artist page on Myspace. Nateabel 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was under major construction and was deleted by someone who did not realize this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazeedriver2005 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The reasons are the following This was a page about an online game that have been deleted some days before: 11:20, 20 March 2007 ChrisGriswold (Talk | contribs) deleted "Booty Master" (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7). As I could not seem to understand why the page should have been deleted, I contacted the administrator through his talk page and asked why. He responded: The reason that article on your game was deleted twice is because your game is not notable, or if it is, you didn't show that at all in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Now, I do not feel that this is a right reason for deletion and I have not found any rule mentioning that popularity of a subject is to define if an article is suitable or not. I mentioned this to the administrator but he hasn't replied to me again. You can check the talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisGriswold#Booty_Master On to further defense of the article I posted, I have to add that the page was deleted without any prior informing. I believe that this is not right too as the page have been there for 20 days and there should have been some , even minimum, time for me to attempt to correct anything not assorted correctly. Additionally, I find it weird that other articles that refer to similar types of games like mine, and that are far less "notable" and consist by a far less encyclopedic value, manage to stay undeleted, while my article was deleted. Its my first time to post an article in Wikipedia and I am trying to learn all the rules etc but I have to say that this type of administrating does not help. Finally, I would like to get an answer on why my page was deleted as I am left uncovered by the administrator response. Also, I would like a restore as I clearly feel that this was an unfair decision. Lastly, if it is judged that my page was against the rules, I would still like the page as it was before deletion, in order to correct what should be corrected. Thank you Panagiotb 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Erroneous claims of HOAX or doubts about existence of the subject. OR, ATT, DECDIF, COPYVIO and SYN issues addressed in subsequent rewrites.
Comment - rewrites completed late last night; deletion occurred early this morning, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version. --MBHiii 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Arkyan squirts ink like an octopus and retreats to another position. Rather than meet head-on the criticism of his baseless claim above "consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy" and its official interpretation, then acknowledging it was inappropriate for him to make, he moves on to ATT which was more than adequately addressed already during AfD discussions and rewrites:
From the above it's clear that Blueboar argues like Arkyan, ignoring or brushing off recent statements they make and replies to them in order to keep attacking, using other (even previously addressed) critiques. (Again, see latest versions of both articles.) Arkyan's and Blueboar's opinions should be severely discounted by you all. --MBHiii 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Repeat, these articles need protection from a couple of otherwise well-spoken, but seemingly disingenuous editors who abuse the deletion process with bad arguments to blank subjects they find "inherently not inclusionworthy." (Read the articles.) --MBHiii 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn - the reason offered for deletion was that the subject did not pass WP:BIO. However, the subject does pass WP:BIO as a television personality who was involved with well-known television productions. The subject was a featured participant in the television show Manhunt and in two seasons of the high-rated show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency including the Christmas with the Dickinsons special. Stallings is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of him. The only rationale offered for deletion was failing WP:BIO but the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. No valid reason offered for deletion. Delete !votes were based on: "vanity spam" (in other words, WP:COI) which is not a valid deletion criteria and, since the subject was not involved with editing the article does not apply anyway; and on an incorrect understanding of WP:BIO suggesting that the subject must "offer (something) special" or be "prolific" or "establish a dramatic character" to qualify for an article, which is not supported by policy or guidelines. Mulitple independent sources were linked in the AFD and in the subject article. The AFD should be overturned and the article restored. Otto4711 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A) It's not expired, B) Even if, it would be noteable because of a sounding history and because great technology often vanishes, a reason to keep in noted at least for one or two decades, especially if there are still hundreds of companies using it Metazargo 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I created this page, and I know my information was accurate, all photos used on the page were documented as being either a low-res screen shot or a low-res logo. I do not believe there was any major bias present as all information was based on 100% facts. I can find no reason for it to have been deleted. Xtorrent is a filesharing (bittorrent) client. It exists, plain and simple, so what's going on? Dreamwinder 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
No consensus to merge or delete. Overturn Tim! 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
These two topics went up for deletion a year ago, and an overwhelming consensus was established that the two needed to be treated equivalently, either both kept or both deleted. Instead, what happened was that Blogging Tories got deleted but Progressive Bloggers got kept. It came to DRV and Blogging Tories was reinstated. More recently, they went up for AFD again, and the exact opposite result occurred; this time Progressive Bloggers was deleted and Blogging Tories was kept. The issue, in a nutshell, is that these two blogging groups represent the two ends of the political spectrum within the Canadian blogosphere. They haven't had differing levels of media coverage from each other; they don't have significantly different levels of web traffic from each other. It constitutes bias to decide that one of them is notable while the other one isn't, because there simply isn't any valid criterion on which it's possible to say that they fall on opposite sides of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. People who voted to keep them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. People who voted to delete them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Lefties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Righties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. (ETA: I should add, as well, that equivalent sources, mostly from the same organizations, were presented in support of both groups; the result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources.) Thus, I'm putting this up for DRV since the results have been inconsistent: do we keep both, or do we delete both? There's simply no case to be made that we can keep one and delete the other. Bearcat 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The information was based on the magazine 'Prep School Magazine'. The Townsend-Warner history prize is very well known throughout England, and I thought that Wikipedia might be improved if such a page was added. I'm sorry to realise that this was not the case. Kobayashis 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Woa.... wait a minute!!!! I just got wind of this "so-called" deletion request by Fethers. What is up with this person???? "Bloodless" Bullfighting is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE from the Spanish style..... like the fact that it is "BLOODLESS"... the bull does not get killed. Fethers has no idea what he is talking about other than he has been hounding that particular article from the get go and the history can speak for itself. This should not even be here... nor should it be up for a debate. The aficions of the Spanish style will even attest to the fact that the "bloodless" style cannot co-mingle within the same realm of the Spanish style because of the "end" part of a bullfight.... where the bull gets killed. Contrary to anything that fethers has to say, the article is NOT any form of publicity other than making the public aware that there is another style to bullfighting. fethers is basically full of himself. The mere fact that you guys agreed to deleting this article served NO justice to the Portuguese people or to the art of this culture. This is un-real and I would like to request that the article be "undeleted" and bring respect back to it. I cannot believe that Wiki-admins made this decision solely on one person's request and did NOTHING to notify me to defend the rights of this article. This was an "unjust" decision.... I am at a loss for words.--Webmistress Diva 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Procedural DRV request on behalf of user by me fethers 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nobody objected to deletion, but User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". CFD does not have a quorum, and regularly works on the principle that if nobody objects to a nomination, it passes. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Has a reasonable debate with a clear consensus to delete; one of the original "keep" commenters even changed his mind as a result of the arguments. Nevertheless. User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". I'm afraid I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable individual; Wikipedia needs to have a page about her. Simply getting rid of the article is an "easy out." Badagnani 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have written about all that can be written in this article, based on the sources, at the bottom of Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor). It's short and sweet, and those seeking the salacious aspect can go read the RS article cited. (The OC Weekly article even mentions this article being locked down.) I would not object to recreation of the article with this text (or something similar if the wording needs tweaking), and full protection, pending more sourcing and discussion on the talk page. Just a suggestion. Crockspot 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
SWATJester decided that it was inappropriate, and I object. I at least want a review. He even deleted the talk page where I defended the existence of the page. PhoenixFire296 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn closure and delete - of three comments expressing an opinion, two were to delete and one was a weak keep specifically noting that deletion was also acceptable. How this can reasonably be construed as "no consensus" is a mystery to me. At the very least this should be overturned and relisted but it seems abundantly clear that a CFD that closes with no one opposing deletion should be closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn closure and delete - of four comments, three were to delete. There is no reasonable way that 75% in favor of deletion can be construed as "no consensus." At the very least, this should be relisted to allow additional comment but I don't know how much more clear it has to be made to the closing administrator that this should have closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was started under a poor title by Futurebird (talk · contribs) and immediately sent to AfD (after a prod was removed). Within a day Novickas (talk · contribs) turned into a high-quality article on the macroeffects of geography on economic development, referencing the pertinent literature, roughly following the survey article by Jeffrey Sachs et al. in the Scientific American, and discussing both causal factors (climate, disease) and exceptions (natural resources, political regimes). The nomination nonsensically claimed this was a POV fork of latitude, and most of the delete !votes roughly fall into three categories: 1. outright unsupported dismissals ("NOR bullshit"), 2. hang-ups on the title ("Where's the latitude?"), 3. comments that made clear the commenter had no grasp of the subject matter ("there are exceptions so it can't be correlated"), and should have been ignored by the closer. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Someone has an itchy trigger finger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nricardo (talk • contribs).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn: This is an anthology compiled by noted cartoonist Ted Rall. It was deleted as "advertising" (CSD g11), though last time I saw the article it was nothing of the sort. Articles on the other two books in the series remain and I am lead to wonder if it was deleted because it is about webcomics. The previous two wer about political and alternative cartooning and remain as of this post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
No consensus supports this closure. Although it was argued that no information would be lost by replacing categories by lists, this argument is not supported by current deletion policy which relies solely on consensus, the purpose of categories being navigational not informational. Tim! 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable company article with legitimate critical commentary Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Extended rationale: The Google cached version of the article clearly had its problems, including a PR-boilerplate lead and overview and a "contact" section. But there were also separate sections on controversies in which the firm has been a party and the external links led to a number of news articles demonstrating notability such as [39] and [40]. In any case, the principal Mark Penn (official bio) is known as a pollster closely associated with Hillary Clinton going back to international work done for the Clinton administration. I believe this shows at least the possibility of an appropriate article and I believe an AFD is in order rather than deletion. If the whole of the article had been advertisement I would not challenge. From what I can see, it is possible that the article was only recently turfed with sections at the front and back, and the history should be examined to determine how much editing work was really promotional. (Note: Mark Penn was speedied a year ago, I have no knowledge of the contents of that article. AFD may wish to decide whether the firm or the man is more notable.) -- Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Request History only undeletion to enable restoration of unquestioned portions (no middle paragraph) with last version on the discussion page for reference. Tried to do some of that, but network failed and had to reboot. --MBHiii 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
New External References that validate novalty, please see http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 213.6.46.103 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Redirect to History of evolutionary thought#Pre-evolutionary Thought. Content was moved there according to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_16. "Fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is referenced in every biology text book I have ever read. 199.106.86.2 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted for CSD#A5 before any AfD consensus had been reached. (CSD#A5 requires an AfD consensus of "transwiki") Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was was deleted and protected because Lasse Gjertsen was regarded as not notable. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a well documented article that states that he is notable. Hogne 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a common enough game to be listed in Wikipedia. This is of course a subjective comment. Looking at articles objectively, "The Game" needs no more justification as an article than Tag (game). This article is tagged with not citing sources, which is part of the problem with The Game (game). "The Game" should be undeleted and a tag added calling for sources. These two articles should be treated with the same objective standards. Personally, and subjectively, I'm a camp counselor and "The Game" has been played at every camp that I've worked at where "Tag" is played. I personally hate the game so you can't blame me for teaching it to them, but the game exists. Perhaps it's a Northeast/Midwest thing that hasn't made it to the deep south or west coast, but if it spans the country from New York to Chicago I think that's significant enough for listing. 5000 is the current number for significance, right? I'm sure that more than 5000 children in the state of Illinois alone play this game. In Defense of the Artist 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Resources/Shouldn't have been deleted PinklBabe 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reliable source: Washington Post article about the game and its creators published Dec 24, 2004 http://www.kingsofchaos.com/post/ 129.174.184.3 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was provided, as a result of adding Wikistock to the list of other Wiki's on the List of wikis page. Wikis listed on the List of wikis page, each have an interlink providing further information about the wiki.Rovo79 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted initially by an editor that failed upon request to disclose if conflict exists with this subject matte. It was edited by several editors who failed to disclose if they had conflict, when requested. Although the reasons for delete were stated and changed to comply with wikipedias rules, several of the editors continued to move for delete. Certain of the comments made by editors were wholly false, ie that there were no sources other than press releases when several news articles were cited. Those editors claiming such had removed the news articles although being informed that they were from highly reputable sources and were unbiased articles on the subject not press release. Many of the editors, although all were asked to disclose any conflicts, refused such courtesy, casting a negative light on the whole review as biased and possibly jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia, these authors claimed even that editors are not under conflict rules themselves. Several of the editors were trying to work on the article to make it work and it originally was worked on and approved by the initial editor of a related article Iviewit, also under deletion review. Iviewit was also removed by the same editor who fails to disclose conflict here under repeated requests. If Wikipedia has no rules for editors to disclose conflict with their edits when requested than Wikipedia has lost its credibility and integrity and that will be a shame for all who use it. I request that these matters going forward, due to the nature of the issues involved and reasons already stated in the discussions, begin and end by editors willing to disclose conflict prior to action or opinion. No conflict, should equal no reason not to so state publicly, it is not an insulting request it is a request to insure integrity in matters where conflicts could prevent unbiased edits and editors removing significant source material and then claiming it is not there. I would also like a rules committee to review the editorial conflict rules and assess if under extraordinary circumstances as these require, this is a viable request, upfront conflict disclosure upon request, to maintain the integrity of the publication. Since these statements have no harm if no conflict exists, and greater improves the integrity of the publication it seems only prudent. --Iviewit 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I had conceded my first argument, the strong keep due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But throughout the discussion new sources and references had been added, and an entirely new claim to notability was introduced. Users such as Squilibob, SeanOrange, Farix, and PDelahanty had not had time to be exposed to the new information that was introduced. Also User:Roninbk and I were still discussing the verifiability of the new claims. Please ignore my first Strong Keep paragraph: I conceded that point. Instead, new information about the Convention (the fact that it is the only & largest in the state) had been added that other users did not have a chance to discuss. While this may or may not be of significant notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, that should be discussed in a new AfD, especially considering that most of the users that participated in this AfD never were exposed to the new material. Kopf1988 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sufficiently notable term. This was first speedied, improperly in my opinion, as a neologism and a racist expression. I made a new version that I thought would pass G4, since it provided references to establish notability, but my rewrite was speedied as well. Of course it's an offensive term, but that doesn't mean it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. As to whether it's a neologism: yes, it doesn't appear in dictionaries. But the word has been used for a fairly long time.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reliable References
In light of these reliable and verifiable references it seems that an article on Matrixism should be re-visited. At the very least the dicussion page for the Matrixism article should be unlocked. 206.188.56.24 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Attention: Someone has edited out large parts of this deletion review. It seems that some people are unwilling to give this article a fair hearing. Perhaps this should be reported to administrators. I would do it myself but I am not yet familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. 206.124.144.3 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It was deleted due to failing WP:CORP, though WP:WEB should technically apply. It had a very weak consensus. Also, it did not fail the main notability criteria. It was the subject of this article from the Dallas Morning News, this article from a Mississippi news source,and this article from the New York Times. (Unfortunately, the last 2 articles are paid subscription only, so only part of the text is available) According to the AfD, it was also featured on Good Morning America and CNN. The 2nd AfD, (where it was actually deleted) can be found here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted as non-notable. FreeCol has won last Februaries Sourceforge.net's Project of the Month (as was stated in the article) and has 115,000 hits in Google. Kc4 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Arbitrary speedy deletion unwarranted. This article was speedily deleted within an hour of its creation, preventing me from adding more information. The health drink is the beginning of a new market of antioxidant drinks that claim to have wide-ranging health benefits. A Wikipedia article that provides information about whether these claims are valid is "notable". Americanuck 05:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a maintenance category that is only empty for a short time after the cleanup has been completed, until the next run of the Smackbot that tags articles with {{Please check ISBN}}. John Vandenberg 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted as memorial/non-notable individual MadMax 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I had previously created an article on Dean Roberts, a Yardie-affiliated drug dealer who had been a longtime requested article at WikiProject British crime when it had been nominated for deletion during the last week as a memorial and non-notable individual. However, while it is arguable weither or not his criminal career itself was notable (which indeed remained the main focus of the debate), he was one of two notable victims (the other being prominant music producer Henry "Junjo" Lawes) regarding a series of unsolved Yardie gangland related slayings occuring in London during the first half of 1999 (which as cited in the article, caused Scotland Yard to form a government task force to deal with the revenge killings). The main point which I made was that his notability, at least in my opinion, was based on the fact that he was a victim of a highly publicized unsolved murder spree which would ultimatly result in the life imprisonment of Rickey Sweeney and several members of the North London-based "Lock Street Crew" in 2002 during Operation Trident. Other gangland murder victims have similarly been covered on Wikipedia such as Arnold Schuster, Ferdinand Boccia and Eddie Cummiskey. However, while I left several reponces to a number of editors, only one user (User:TBC) replied and later recinded his own vote in favor of merging with Operation Trident. After its nomination for deletion, I expanded the article significantly and provided at least 4-5 additional resources including news reports and articles regarding his unsolved murder and his murder being the principal cause of the Lock Street Crew's downfall, however, no other comments were made after March 13. MadMax 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Work in progress, also need history, discussion, and discussion in delete proposal. MBHiii 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
AHEM, did any of you guys read the latest version, or did you base your decisions solely on the (now largely irrelevant) AfD log? When you evaluate an AfD, do you weigh more heavily the later votes and comments that reflect changes made to the document after the AfD started? --MBHiii 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedied per CSD:G11, deletion contested at Talk:Www.jackcolton.com and [54]. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Improper Speedy Keep Jd2718 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC) User:CanadianCaesar speedy kept Black people, citing WP:SNOW. I object strongly.
Per SNOW (which I understand is an application of IAR): 'If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause and the action should, if possible, be undone.' I believe this applies here, and ask that the discussion be reopened and allowed to run its course.
DELETE It's an silly topic for an encyclopedia. I proposed to either rename it or just delete it. It can be re-written as a general topic that covers many subjects in history to world relations, AA, civil rights, challenges, racism, views, accomplishments, notable persons, slavery issues, that can include the different 'blacks' around the world. Or to African-Americans in Slavery. see my proposal on talk page. As it is now it is nothing but a message board type topic where people share their opinions, views, politics, and racism. It is a forum. It is a joke, as it is right now. It's always going to be controversial, always! The topic Black people too broad. Awww. UGH I give up. This is sad. Jeeny 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Improper A7 by User:Xiner of a well-known children's book in the United States by the author of a number of the most important books for the age group he writes for over the last 10 years. One, books are not A7 candidates, so the deletion reason is invalid. Second, it's a noteworthy book by a highly notable children's author, thus meeting the significance portion of WP:BK even in the off chance that A7 did apply to books. Is now protected against recreation for absolutely no useful reason whatsoever, to boot. Should be undeleted immediately. badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please allow the posting of this Columbus Podcast, I have received several outside sources, including a link from the Columbus Alive Newspaper. http://www.columbusalive.com/?sec=services&story=alive/2007/0208/l-lunch.html to indicate that this is a valid piece of information. Further information can be written to this page to indicate it's authenticity. Ironhide1975 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The decision to delete the category "women writers" should be reviewed: i) the discussion was not complete; ii) it is a useful category for many editors and users; and iii) "women writers" is widely recognized as a distinct category in publishing and literary studies. There are good arguments for reinstatement on the category talk page, as well as here. scribblingwoman 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was created again after it (and The Baseball Channel) were deleted for crystal ball. I think that both Baseball Channel and The Baseball Channel should be locked from editing until an official announcement for this proposed network. Milchama 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
article about extremely popular chain letter was vandalized and deleted unfairly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.39.1 (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...". This article transparently fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be deleted regardless of what the AfD votecount is. I was the only participant recommending deletion here but felt policy is clear in this case, so I asked the closing admin to reverse his close or at least relist the AfD. He refused to do either. BTW would like to acknowledge that this is just one of many recent WP:WINAD AfD's that in my view were closed in favor of votes and against policy. The attitude of many participants in these AfD's, including this one, has seemed to be "it's long, so it can't be a dictionary article" which is wrong as explained in WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Retarded Animal Babies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Deleted per WP:WEB in december 2006 after an AFD that barely had discussion or consensus, and protected from recreation on the first nomination. Retarded Animal Babies has since gained notability since being prominently featured in a Weird Al Yankovic video. Propose to undelete, as it was a well written article, or at least allow recreation. --Edokter (Talk) 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Copyvio sections had been removed from the article after concerns were raised. The user who made the request may have forgotten to remove it from the copyvio list. Dual Freq 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notoriety has been established, see statistics in talk page Natebailey 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was an incomplete list of fonts. I completed the list and it vanished with no explanation. Did I do something wrong? Ray Larabie - www.typodermic.com 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
No reason for deletion...page was deleted back in feburary, but now it's there but blank...would like original page restored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diegelmannsj (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
editor did not notify author or post for discussion and fails to confirm or deny conflicts with the artice. I would request a discussion on this similar to the one now on Eliot Bernstein and whereby due to the nature of the issues, all editors discussing such article or commenting have been requested in wikipoliteness to affirm that they have no conflict with these matters Iviewit 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As has been explained it could be a deadly undertaking Rossami. Are you willing to undertake the writing yourself? Since COI is not a reason for deletion in whole, especially in circumstances as these, yet I agree wholeheartedly with COI problems were circumstances do not permit, and if circumstances that could cause harm to your children for your part did not exist perhaps someone else would write it. In fact, editors initially worked to make Eliot Bernstein an autobio from the initial Iviewit article, even here there seemed to be some efforts to edit the article but some of the edits caused concerned. Not that they could not have been overcome, such as reinserting valid source documents from reliable sources that mistankingly were removed as press releases. Veinor I left word that once you revealed no conflict your comments should stand. I did not accuse you of homophobic or any other such, as I do not know you. I did retort to your gay voting comments as example to be flawed and this was in the spirit of debating the statement, not your personal sexual preference. In response to the value of the inventions, I suggest you turn to the Wachovia Private Placement Memo which should give you a starting point although it left off many other markets but it would have been ridiculous. Imagine in fact, an internet that could not scale video, you would see all video like you did until these inventions, in small grainy post stamp boxes, abhorrable upon full screen viewing and worthless at less than 7 frames per second with audio mono and compressed beyond viewable. As I stated before, Gates gave away Media to Glazer initially because it sucked using MPEG technology and was in Gates words a non commodity. Glazer formed Real as he believed that while although the video sucked it had applications. Bill handed it to him, until along came Eliot Bernstein and a group of techies who dreamed a new way that allowed the previous impossible streaming of video that you suck up daily in bandwidth at full screen full frame rate. Bill did an about face, much after everyone and simply copied the iviewit process into his encoder, as Real had done. In fact, Hassan Miah (Intel / CAA Multimedia Lab)/XING/Real being the first to call the inventions the "Holy Grail". Take that wonderful zoom off your digital camera and remove it from Hubble and remove it from G Maps etc. for without the scaling images you would still pixelate. Solving for pixel distortion was yet another invention. Do some homework on this and review the site material at http://www.iviewit.tv , read some of the other financial institutions estimates etc. I think at this time by the last CEO of Iviewit, outstanding royalties on only a few markets due currently since 1999 is well over 50 billion in royalties due the true inventors and shareholders. Many inventors have to wait years to collect on their inventions (7-10) and so I would not doubt that those shares of Iviewit are as valuable as ground floor shares in Microsoft and so do many of the people who invested in Iviewit. Hey where is the guy on Wikipedia who solved for streaming low bandwidth video at full screen full frame rate and the one on the inventor of zoom and pan on a digital camera using scaled low res images free of pixel distortion on zoom? Ok I agree with most sound mind here to drop the rhetoric and get to an edit that works by fair and impartial people. So if you want to take a stab at writing the article, putting the reliable sources in and risking your neck, please take a stab and see what others think, in fact, we were on that course when you mistakingly I presume removed the newspaper articles that were articles written by credible papers. We were in the middle of working together to get this done and some were editing, I had no problems other than the removal of the sources. I think hurrying this process to close over personal issues makes this process less reliable.--Iviewit 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This Afd was closed as no consensus by Seraphimblade. No keep opinions had been made and there was difference of opinion as to whether the article should be deleted outright or converted into a redirect. Seraphimblade suggested the discussion should continue on the talkpage [63], but this is clearly unsatisfactory as (a) few people visit the article and (b) a deletion concensus on a talkpage is of no effect. Given that this is the second no consensus AfD result for this article, it seems better than we ensure an actual decision is made at AfD. I propose that the AfD be reopened and relisted among today's nominations, so consensus can be reached. WjBscribe 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Note by closer: Nominee is the originally blocked user. Has been blocked again, and I doubt anyone will be releasing the block. So he can be counted as a banned user for now.block log This significantly impacts some of the earlier comments. I'm leaving the page redirected to Athletic trainer, which title is better can be at that talk page better than it can be here. Editors in good standing can also merge anything they consider suitable. GRBerry 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Requesting for this page (User:Bradles_01/Sports trainer) to be created as Sports trainer, the information is relevant and is meets wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Please Note: Sports Trainer has been deleted and has been blocked for creating a page in that name, if the deletion of this page was to be undone the content in User:Bradles_01/Sports trainer would need to be re-created as Sports Trainer. The reason for the deletion in the first place was because of an incorrectly placed picture which i have removed in the current reversion. (Bradleigh 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Emo Rangers meets notability guidelines. The article was deleted in 2005. Since then the television show has become apart of the MTV UK broadcast, and it is also showing on the MTV US website. http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/28092006/mighty_moshin_emo_rangers It has also been mentioned in various media sources, such as Chart (magazine) magazines's online website, http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/05/2603.cfm I request the article be undeleted. Teram10 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This Youtube celebrity's stub was created with full assertation of notability stating "His videos have attracted 1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 subscribers." This article was fully referenced by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Within one minute of the stub's creation, user:ScorpO speedy deleted it. The user stated on my talk page: "As much attention as renetto may gain on youtube I do not feel he is notable enough to have an article about him." [64] This article was in no way proper criteria for speedy deletion and the reason the user gave for the deletion was
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article on this song was speedy-deleted by an admin with the comment "article that makes no claim to significance of its (not yet existent) subject)". This song was listed by Rolling Stone magazine in the 100 best songs of 2006; additionally the subject of this article does exist, so the deleting admin was in error as to that. Ryanjunk 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The reason that this particular page should not be deleted is fairly simple. A proper definition was used, but the citation was forgotten. Also by having this undeleted you are letting the people involved remeber the memories that were made. It may seem like a childish thing but this where I and many others have made life long friends. Most of the people involved had this special sort of bond that can never be recreated. It was something that does seem adolecent but is far from it. The deeper bonds that were established is the true purpose of having a proper online documentation of it. I hope that you reconsider. If the page is not to be undeleted some reasons and possible suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable contestant on American Idol who made it to the Top 8. [66] [67] BlueLotas 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |