Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 16-31
31 January 2007
| Bishoy Habib – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
the reason is because this is a real rapper who many people and fans adore, and he is on the rise. a wikipedia page for this artist would only be appropriate. and besides, all of the information on there was true, and so was the reference. many people are not satisfied now that it has been removed, so please attend to this ASAP, thank you. Egyamanda 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Adam4Adam – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article asserts notability through verifiable sources. More can easily be provided. It is neither POV nor spammy; it was Wikified and had considerable information within. This article is being confused with previous versions with which the current author has no connection. The article was Speedy Deleted desite a "hangon" that had been there less than 24 hours. The topic of this article is a website used by men to meet for sex. The subject of this article may be creating an unjust bias against the article itself. House of Scandal 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Since when does an article creator saying something an admin doesn't like have a bearing on an article's notability? You told someone today to trust the process. To take issue with LBGT project people being informed about this discussion is contemptable. Shaundakulbara 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
More deceit, more hypocrisy, and now paranoid histrionics too.
You ignored a "hangon" and used your admin privileges to Speedy Delete an article which another admin had just restored. This was an abuse of power and when someone pointed that out (you were not called an evil power mad dictator and homophobe, that is your self-characterization) you decided to punish the author. When you volunteered to be an admin you agreed to follow guidelines and policies. Your observation of rules and policies should not be dependant on people kissing your butt. Encouraging civility doesn’t mean using the mop and keys to punish anyone who speaks to you in a manner you don’t like.
You went out of your way to kill the article. You’ve spent enormous energy trying to keep it dead. Don’t pretend like your current course of action was the path of least effort. And sir, I referred to you as an asshole indirectly, I didn’t say “Chairboy you are an asshole...I said “the editor who deleted this is an asshole.” You are one who keeps dredging up the fact that I was referring to you. Three Admins have already reminded me about civility, this was my first breech of it ever. ::Get over it, Mary! - it is NOT relevant to this article’s notability. You are the one making this about editors not about articles. When you forced this article to go to Deletion Review you thus chose to have your admin practices scrutinized and now you don't like the results. If it seems many people are saying negative things against you, if a respected Wikipedian with many peer awards says you abuse your power, if you are described as an asshole by a (different) editor who has never been rude before, if you are being cast as a villain by an usually high turnout of editors, what could be the reason? Shaundakulbara 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The following statements are quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:
Can this be any clearer? - Shaundakulbara 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Image:Eur_20041214_tues3art.jpg – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This image was unilaterally deleted while
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Henrietta the four-legged chicken – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I wanted to add something to this article I'd read before and found it was speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as not-notable but that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria. The article was well-sourced to news events and a simple Google search [12] shows 52,000 hits, a third of that of Mike the headless chicken - seems notable enough to me in the realm of mutant chickens. An article with notability and reliably sourced shouldn't be thrown away on whim. SchmuckyTheCat 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| User:PopeofPeru – Discussion moot – trialsanderrors 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have initiated this review per the suggestion of original deleter Proto after my attempt to persuade him to reverse his decision failed. This userpage of an unbanned editor was deleted without justifiable cause as part of the reaction to the recent round of Colbert vandalism. I therefore request that the userpage be fully restored AND/OR the page be restored and the congratulatory comments be moved to the respective talk page, where they properly belong. --Hemlock Martinis 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: This is my first attempt at a deletion review, so if I breach protocol in some way I would appreciate the notification. Thanks! :D)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Dogme ELT – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dogme ELT is an internet forum for teachers of English as a second language. On November 4, 2006, the Dogme ELT article was deleted as copyvio. On November 15, 2006, the article was deleted per this AfD. The article was speedy deleted on January 30, 2007 by The JPS. A reason given for the speedy deletion was speedy deletion criteria 4 - "Recreation of deleted material". Malangthon asserts that none of the speedy deletion criteria applies and now request review of the January 30, 2007 speedy deletion by The JPS. Malangthon posted a request at ArbCom. trialsanderrors took Malangthon's request posted at ArbCom, created this deletion review request on January 31, 2007, and post the following ArbCom quote from Malangthon in support of this deletion review request: "The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy. (...) Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" This lead section was revised on February 4, 2007 by Jreferee to provide some clarification. -- Jreferee 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: User:GRBerry, 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) REBUTTAL Re: "I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be civil and assume good faith.
Re: “The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.”
“The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.”
With regard to the section beginning, "The sources offered in the new article are"
SUMMARY:
Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, articles about pumpkin-headed deer are hardly of global signficance nor a topic impacting billion dollar industries although I certainly welcome the reading of trivial and slightly bizzare phenomena. Even though such articles are usually the domain of "UrbanMyth.com", I have no doubt that it fits Wikipedia's mission as does Dogme ELT which is significant on many levels.
Malangthon 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Malangthon 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
30 January 2007
| Vlada Frey – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why have you deleted Vlada frey? I saw many people getting in his defense on article discussion page. All you "wikipedians" had in your defense is bunch of dumb rules YOU made up. You people act like you have all the knowledge of the world and if there's someone you actually haven't heard of, then that person is not worthy of your precious wikipedia. So what if Vlada doesn't have a web page? Is the internet only thing deserving merit to you? I have read a lot of magazines and newspaper articles mentioning Vlada. But, hey, they are all Eastern European, you haven't heard of them, right? And, ofcourse, that means they are not worthy. For crying out loud, man, get a little more flexible, will you? I ask for detailed answer, as why are you people so stubborn about your rules, the article didn't stated anything bizarre, sick or offending? P.S. Since the article was in process of debate, and your "rules" state that the page in this process should remain intact for seven days, why has the page been deleted two days earlier? Shmeket (misfiled at Content review, moved by GRBerry
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of tall men – Restored and relisted at AfD, along with List of tall women – trialsanderrors 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus. Note: For the sake of consistency, I am also nominating List of tall women for deletion review (the result of the AfD debate was a consensus keep). The administrator's justification for the decision is that:
However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":
The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article). At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men (per the suggestion by User:Penwhale, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page). Black Falcon 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Note: This article has undergone an AfD three more times (as copied from the most recent AfD): Black Falcon 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Text of the GNU Free Documentation License – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The arguments for and against this redirect were laid out in the RfD discussion. Those arguments boil down to an assertion that this redirect meets criterion 4 of the "avoid deleting such redirects" section of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? Reviewing the discussion, I do not see any reasonable way that the discussion can be interpreted as having had consensus for deletion.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wikilobbying – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikilobbying is a practice which has been known to occur, and while the word may be relatively unknown, it is at least debatable whether it is deserving of its own entry. To summarily delete it as it was without allowing any time for discussion seems very arbitrary. At the very least, it should've been allowed some time for discussion before being deleted. TV4Fun 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| chris thompson(business) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
this is a bio relating to the company cmtd. this article is an essential part of that other page Ccthompson
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Flashes Before Your Eyes – unsalted by protecting admin and new content written. Further actions at editorial descretion. – GRBerry 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was deleted and locked because no verifiable info was available - that info has now become available so the article may be created: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=012907_17. -- Wikipedical 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Order of Nine Angles – Deletion overturned, relsited at AfD – trialsanderrors 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn please? The vote count was in favour of keep (4-2 with 1 other person commenting), and the AfD was started by a sockpuppet. Notability is not an issue as there are several third-party references to ONA, and the article itself had references at the bottom of the article (check the Wayback Machine) - although the article was, perhaps, not very thoroughly referenced. This sockpuppet seems to have been used to delete a few articles similar to the ONA article, perhaps for religious reasons. 72.12.133.163 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry. I mean, please overturn the deletion. Or, undelete article, reinstate article, etc.; sorry, I'm new to this process. The point is, it was a vote to keep, but the article got deleted anyway.72.12.133.163 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
29 January 2007
| Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was deleted for a legitamate Pro Wrestling Company that provided a history and ability to find out the current historical information of wrestling in the Central New York Region. The suggestion that only one person contributed context is false. People seeking this information no longer have a place to go. Rock345 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
So you're telling me that having the NWA/TNA Championship defended twice in a federation makes it not noteable. In fact, that's what I was going on their to update. If you're going to let other originizations in the area run wiki sites with less information just becasue they are a year older that's fine. Just letting you know I disagree with it. Rock345
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Stepanavan Youth Center – Restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AFD (here) was improperly closed. The sources to satisfy WP:N were provided. The closer noted this but deleted anyway, saying "the same can be said of a large number of youth centers". That may be true, but we do have over 1,600,000 articles. It's not like we're going to be overwhelmed by a couple hundred youth center articles (even assuming anyone actually bothers to write all those articles that might potentially pass WP:ORG). The fact is that WP:N was fulfilled, and there is no reason to selectively enforce the notability policy just because of the type of organization. Specifically, WP:ORG states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And those reliable third party sources were provided, both in the article and in the AFD. So the fact that this might let other youth centers in means very little; notability was clear, and selective enforcement is detrimental to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Comparison of BitTorrent sites – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was AfD'd in september, under the grounds that it was little more than a web directory, and not much of a comparison. I userfied a version of it before its deletion and worked on it for several months, until I had grown satisfied that the arguments made at the AfD were no longer valid. I then recreated the page, leaving a message on the talk page about why I had chosen to recreate it. This page was speedily deleted by Proto a few days later, with the summary "CSD G4 - Receaation [sic] of deleted content". As I stated above, it is correct that the article had been deleted before - however, the old version was substantially different from the new version (diff) to not qualify under CSD G4. I contacted proto informing him about his error, and asked him to either recreate it or, if he thought that that was not possible, to userfy it so I could have a backup version (I naturally didn't want to lose several months' work). He chose to userfy it. I contacted him again, a week ago, reminding him that it didn't qualify under G4, and asked him again to restore it to the mainspace. He still hasn't answered, so I chose to take it here, to DRV. As you've now probably gathered by now, I think that this page should be recreated because the new version is an actual comparison, as opposed to a web directory, that it is sourced, and that it is substantially different from the original deleted version to not satisfy CSD G4. Even though it's a weaker argument, I'd also like to point out the high traffic it used to get, and the messages asking why it was deleted (1, 2, 3). Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| T.H.E. Fox – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't normally come to deletion review, but I'm surprised at this one as there was no consensus to delete. Five votes for keep, two (or possibly three) for delete. One previous vote had been converted to keep on the basis of arguments establishing the comic's notability (namely, that it appears to be the first comic distributed online, dating to 1986 and onwards). WP:WEB is an inappropriate metric to apply to content that appeared several years before the web itself existed, and being the first "webcomic" that we know of in the world seems a clear claim to notability. In response to the closing administrator's comment, I disagree that an interview conducted with the author by the Commodore Roundtable group does not count as a source. Indeed, I would have thought them rather well-placed to determine the comic's provenance and to challenge any inaccuracies. Moreover, several facts from the interview were independently verifiable, as noted in the AfD discussion. GreenReaper 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Dave Wills (wrestling) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
On the AFD discussion of the page, there was no clear consensus of how editors felt about the article and not enough editors participating to make any consensus. 4 editors wanted to delete the article (2 of which are questionable/non-prolific editors), and 5 wanted to keep it. One of the editors found a link to a message board about the deletion of the article. Despite valid reasons given on both sides, it was deleted early under WP:SNOW. There was no barrage of keep/delete votes, and the editors did not give enough time to others to find reliable sources (although the article did list some) and just deleted it. Booshakla 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Clock Crew – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
They are an active community (www.clockcrew.cc). See Talk:Clock Crew for more on why this article should be back on Wikipedia. The last admin to change the article is on break. Lurcho 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Bay Ridge Christian College – 2007 revisions userfied – GRBerry 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I would request a review of the deletion of the above article. While the college does not currently hold accreditation they have applied. Several pages link to the college to include Church of God (Anderson), Warner Pacific College, and Association of Christian College Athletics. Additionally, I am currently researching the colleges move from Mississippi to Texas as a result of threats from the KKK. This would give the college notoriety from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement perspective.
Thank you for the review/discussion. Much of my original research into the college ("finding the RSs that say X") was contained in the article. Is there anyway to retire the information without starting from scratch to build the page in my user space?
On the personnel comment note: I'm a little disappointed in the response tone in what I considered a legitimate request for review. I in no way wanted to present myself as a research expert, but instead was simply stating that I was looking for additional sources on the college. Bay Ridge Christian College is a small institution with limited funding and an interesting history to African-Americans and members of the Church of God (Anderson) movement. I was not attempting to do any free advertising for the college, but was instead trying to provide information on a top which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
28 January 2007
| Bill Madden – New article moved into mainspace as requested – trialsanderrors 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
see comments below please ww 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I am new to Wikipedia. On January 9, my very first and relatively new article, Bill Madden, was nominated for deletion for failing WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I noted in my Keep vote that I would modify the article so that it would prima facie and on its face assert the relevant points in WP:MUSIC specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists, and fully substantiate as defined in WP:V. Between January 11 and January 15, I re-wrote my article to address these points. Unfortunately, on January 16, my article was deleted. I acknowledge that my article as originally posted was poorly written and in "bad shape". However, I believe that it warranted at least a {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} tag initially rather than a nomination for delete. As a newbie, I clearly understood the invitation from Wikipedia to be bold and also understood that, although my writing may not be up to par with experienced Wikipedians, that the community would assume good faith in my writing (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). I'm writing to ask that you please reconsider the deletion and consider my undeletion request for the following reasons:
For all of the above noted reasons, I kindly request that you consider my undeletion request and reinstate the most recent version of the Bill Madden article which can be found at the moment at User:Windwall/Bill_Madden. Please note that this version is different than the one that was discussed earlier (before deletion) as this version contains all of the recommended changes. Thank you, Windwall 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Potter Puppet Pals – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Both Potter Puppet Pals and its creator, Lemon Demon, have been covered by the Boston Globe, establishing notoriety. The least that should happen is a merge of Potter Puppet Pals into Neil Cicierega. JNighthawk 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Talk:Long Island Electric Railway – Article created, talk page restored – trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This had a template like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, telling admins "please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article", and it had similar information that I compiled. NE2 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hasbara Fellowships – Copyvio version replaced with new article – trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Out-of-process deletion John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC) This article was deleted without an AfD or proper use of a copyvio template by "20:48, 9 January 2007 RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hasbara Fellowships" (fails WP:N, WP:COPY)". This left several articles with redlinks. The article had been previously edited by multiple editors over a period of time, and had settled on a brief article with a cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction. A copy of the article can be seen here on answers.com, since the Wikipedia copy is now inaccessible until restored. --John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Princess Charming – Deleted version replaced by sourced article – trialsanderrors 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A newspaper article indicated that the pilot episode of the show will be aired this Monday.[26] and another user created a much better article on its talk page. -Danngarcia 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Mywebber.com – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
the web site has been release and is a real company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywebber (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Score (magazine) – Pre-December 23, 2006 revisions restored and relisted at AfD. – Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted and protected from recreation, apparently without going through the AFD process. This is a major magazine with wide distribution in the United States, and while the article that was deleted consisted of only one line of text, it is expandable. As an admin, I have restored the page, however it appears other steps need to be take to remove the protection, which is why I'm going through this step. 23skidoo 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
27 January 2007
| Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno – restored by deleting admin and merged to group by another Wikipedian. – GRBerry 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Studio albums by a notable band (Happysad) speedy deleted by Proto on the grounds of insufficient notability. Notability criteria guideline for music says that the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Blood Krupters – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I think that this page should not be deleted as it is a history of a gang and nothing is bad about it! Please undelete it! I will be very thankfull! Sapp Krupter 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Janet Balaskas – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Administrator appeared to overlook the extensive evidence that she is a notable author and speaker on natural childbirth, particlarly provided by the latter comments on the AFD. She coined the phrase "Active Birth" A Google Search shows some 71,000 uses of the term. She has published six books. I can't see that this fails our notability requirements! Maustrauser 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Marsden-Donnelly harassment case – Overturn speedy deletion, retitle and list at AFD again. See the long form (6 paragraphs) of the closers comment within. As an editor, the article will also be stubbed before listing again. – GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Long form of closer's comment: The larger editorial community would probably look at the article the same way they did when the last AFD pointed them at the ArbComm case - they came up with an overwhelming keep result. So we get a cycle of 1) speedy deletion, 2) deletion review overturn, 3) AFD keep, 1) speedy deletion, etc.... We've already been around the cycle once; this is the second time at deletion review. The last ArbComm decision came right in the middle of the AFD that was closed at keep, but what was going to happen was clear to a reader that choose to look even before the AFD started. The AFD result was also obvious at the time the ArbComm closed their case, but I find no evidence that the last deletion review and current AFD had been pointed out to them. While the cycle is not as fast moving as a wheel war, this isn't much better either, and the cycle is the natural consequence of the ArbComm case. (Anyone who has previously undeleted or speedy deleted and repeats that action is warned that this could be considered a wheel war, including myself if we get a third cycle.) I therefore take guidance from the policy on wheel wars, that dispute resolution should be used as an attempt to break the cycle. There are too many parties (42 here alone, disregarding banned users) for one on one discussion to reach a decision. The normal forum for discussing article deletion is AfD, and nobody endorsed the one proposal to use a different forum, so that is where we will go. There is fairly weak evidence here of a consensus that we should not have an article at this title, so moving to a new title is part of the close, but the specific title I choose is not. And the ArbComm case says that any editor can stub the articles related to RM. So the close here overturns the speedy deletion, as per the Undeletion policy and brings the article to AFD per both the Undeletion policy and the wheel war policy. I will then, as an editor, move the page to one of the possible better titles and dramatically trim down the article. After that, I will complete the close here by listing at AFD. A possible compromise outcome that we might be better served by putting a paragraph or two into History of Simon Fraser University was discussed, and is one of the initially proposed RfC. Unfortunately, that one-edit stub would also start suffering undue weight problems and be at risk of failing to remain in a state satisfying WP:BLP if even two paragraphs from this was just dropped in there. Additionally, many of the later keep deleted opiners that said keep deleted per above without clarification thereby left it uncertain if they support or oppose this outcome. One even managed to say per multiple names, some of whom support and some of whom oppose this possible outcome. I hope that the AFD can clarify whether this idea is supported by consensus. GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sad to say this is back at Deletion Review for the second time:
I have since tried to negotiate with SlimVirgin (by email) to have the article undeleted, but she has not agreed to do so. Discussion on deletion has also taken place at: Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case and Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive2. I don't dare to summarize the discussion, however it should be noted that much of it comes from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. User:Stompin' Tom, who suggested the most recent speedy deletion, is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. In my opinion, no basis in Wikipedia policy has been given for deletion. A person familiar with Canadian news over the past ten years would not consider this to be a sub-article of Rachel Marsden, or vice-versa. Half an hour of research easily establishes that the case soars above any notability bar we have, by a factor of ten at least. See the cross-section of newspaper articles compiled at Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources . Most of the items in numbers 106 to 299 deal directly with the case, and most of the rest make mention of it. The article should be expanded to discuss its The energy spent putting this article through deletions and undeletions would have been much better spent on constructively discussing concerns on the Talk page. Kla'quot 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Per Fred. However, it might be appropriate to include some of this material in Simon Fraser University. The notable event was not the Marsden-Donelly case itself, but the fact that this case prompted a review of the handling of harassment cases that resulted in several old cases being overturned and the resignation of the university president. A brief description of the Marsden case in the context of the overall controversy at SFU might be appropriate. Naming the article after Marsden is by itself a BLP/undue weight violation--it would be like writing an article about the Trojan War calling it the Paris-Helen affair. Thatcher131 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Pawn Game – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Well written real page, is notable. It was deleted due to (nn web) I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive the quality of what I am doing. Pawn Game I believe is a notable game, and it worthy of staying up. Just like Stick arena is because they are basically the same thing. it is a game that is created and is playable, forums, domain etc. I will keep it updated. I do not know what to say? I am new, but I love wikipedia, but this is my first ever created submission, besides minor edits, etc.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
26 January 2007
| Bought Science – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
IMHO, this page should not have faced speedy deletion by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. If pages such as Junk science and Sound science can exist on Wiki, then surely one for Bought science should be. Bought science is neither any more of a neologism, nor a POV, than "Junk science" or "Sound science" is, as Jeffrey alleges. NorthMiamiBeach 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I question why this page faced speedy deletion. It was not patent nonsense, nor advertising, nor a personal attack page, but rather a well written and researched article critical of the PMRA. If other Wikipedia pages can exist that are critical to issues such as global warming (i.e. the movie an Inconvenient Truth etc), or Criticisms to the 911 Movie "Loose Change" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism ), then surely one critical of the PRMA should also be allowed to exist, without being deleted. I would appreciate a Wikipedia panel review on this matter. NorthMiamiBeach 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Adam Keller court martial – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
(1) The court martial is notable because (a) (2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now created an article on Adam Keller. It is a stub, which needs more work. But the bare bones are there, including reference to the court martial. He is certainly a notable-enough person to merit a Wikipedia entry. RolandR 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Charles C. Poindexter – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [48] Notability was established at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter. MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets see if there is any valid proof with this one. 172.164.250.29 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
25 January 2007
| The Game (game) – Speedy close, no new information – 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The Game has previously been deleted from Wikipedia because it was not previously verifiable. However, The Game has now been published on its own web site, http://ilostthegame.org. Does this web site dedicated to The Game suffice? Hamz01 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Liz Rettig – Userfied to requestor's sandbox – 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Young Hot Rod – Deletion endorsed, recreation in userspace recommended – trialsanderrors 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
How many times do I have to tell you, he IS TOO notable! I mean, he is signed to G-Unit Records as well as Interscope (Spider Loc isn't part of Interscope, yet you have a page on him}, his single Be Easy, charted on the Billboard charts (Top R&B/Hip-Hop), and if you google him, there are several notable sources. Undelete, but if that's not possible, Unprotect, so someone with better info can recreate it. Tom Danson 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Alela Diane – Overturned and listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Alela Diane is an up-and-coming artist of renown, for whom at some point soon there will clearly need to be an article. She is already cross referenced in the psych folk and New Weird America articles. She currently has 47,000 Google hits (up from 45K yesterday), is touring in the US, and shortly in the UK. She has an All Music Guide entry. I suspect that one factor in the summary deletion of the article may have been the references to her early work being self-published. However, her album has now been issued internationally to widespread acclaim, as evidenced by a simple Google search which will show numerous positive reviews, establishing her importance as a singer-songwriter. Information should be made available on this current artist who is in the process of becoming one of international renown. Ghmyrtle 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Assburger syndrome – Löschung bestätigt (deletion endorsed) – trialsanderrors 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I think there is substantial evidence that this exists as an innocent misspelling, and the presence of a so-called "bad word" should not have automatically caused it to be seen as disparaging and used as a reason to delete the redirect. Random832 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I think the controversy at Redirects to Asperger syndrome is grounds for a speedy relist at the very least. —Random8322007-01-26 13:44 UTC (01/26 08:44 EST)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season – relisted at AFD – GRBerry 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
No reason given by closing admin. WP:CRYSTAL was cited by many delete proponents, however, content was referenced and citations inserted. A message left on the closing admin's talk page has gone unanswered. Neier 12:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| ProductWiki – Deletion endorsed among established editors – 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recently discovered the ProductWiki article was deleted from Wikipedia. I read the debate that lead to the deletion, and feel that the comments in the debate were unfair and inaccurate. I am a co-founder of ProductWiki, and we are not a spam wiki, nor new, nor an insignificant wiki. We have been growing for over 1 year, and have 13,000 products contributed by our community of almost 2,000 members. We provide a voice for the consumer, and have chosen the wiki format as the best medium. As per the WP:WEB Web notability criteria, we meet criteria #1. We have been sourced multiple times in published works, including Popular Science magazine (both print and online), the Kitchener Record, and in Ben McConnell's latest book Citizen Marketers. Ekkalvia 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
24 January 2007
| Piotr Blass – Article unsalted, draft moved to mainspace and relisted at AfD – 07:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Closing notes: I closed this DRV as the discussion is now moot. There was overwhelming concensus to unsalt and move the new draft to articlespace, which Trialanderrors acknowledged and proceeded to unsalt the articlespace location. As such, the request for unsalting, which this was, has been fufilled, and this discussion need not continue on the merits of the new draft. I moved the new draft to the article location (Piotr Blass), and immediately relisted it at AfD per the general feeling below. I ask you read my nomination, especially the "Further notes" part, where I clarify my reasons for relisting rather than alternatively simply leaving the article to sit there, as one or two of the below users suggested. I write this extended reasoning as I'm a non-administrator, however I felt that even so, this discussion will achieve nothing further open. Any general discussion about whether the draft-which-is-now-the-article should be deleted or kept should take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination), not here, and hence there is no reason to continue this. Daniel.Bryant 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
The Piotr Blass article was deleated after AfD#1 and AfD#2, largely because of lack of Wikipedia:Notability. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion. I took the new information and created a draft article here, which I would like to be included as the Piotr Blass article. The article talk page requests that this article be discussed prior to recreating it. Please review the draft article and take the steps necessary to have it included as the Piotr Blass article (relisting, overturn, etc.). Thank you. -- Jreferee 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Saul Kaiserman – no consensus to overturn – GRBerry 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'd ask that you undelete that bio/article. In support of my request, and in response to the criticisms made of the bio/article's noteworthiness, I am attaching some of my notes and relevant links below. Saul Kaiserman is a recognized leader in the field of Jewish education, and an opinion leader in the scholarship re: birkat hamazon
Devincohen 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| LoHo – Deletion endorsed, redirect set editorially – trialsanderrors 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I believe that the administrator allowed people's personal bias to interfere with the rational approach to this debate. The fact that people disagree with the tactics that caused the name LoHo to come into play 10 years ago do not take away the fact that it indeed has come into play. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment **The Village Voice, not sure if it is a Reliable Source, had a story called LES is more, and it talks about the "boutiquification" of Loho. See this link Village Voice, LES Is More, by Sarah Ferguson, March 22 - 28, 2000. It states,
While it is stil not the feature on the name, it is about the neighborhood and mentions "dubbed Loho" Juda S. Engelmayer 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Funny Farm (comic) – Speedy deletion overturned and relisted at AfD – Daniel.Bryant 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of literary works with eponymous heroines – Deletion endorsed, sent to project space – trialsanderrors 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
follow-up deletion, no thorough discussion <KF> 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) At first there was no request for deletion at all. Rather, a contributor was hoping that the companion article, List of literary works with eponymous heroes (that one still very much work in progress), would be improved. As no deletion was requested, "speedy close" of discussion was suggested. However, at that point someone who had never contributed to either page (User:Apostrophe) suddenly requested deletion. In the wake of the ensuing debate (about the definition of "hero", whether it could ever be NPOV, where participants misinterpreted the literary term as a moral judgement), attention was also paid to the corresponding "female" list. Its deletion was only requested by four contributors (who had never contributed to it), and one of the major reasons cited was that now, after the deletion of its "male" counterpart, the list was "orphaned". In fact it had existed since 2003, had always been carefully maintained (not just by myself but also by other contributors who also seem to have been unaware of the deletion process) and is linked to by more than 20 pages. I request undeletion as this list serves at least two purposes: to show all those involved in the WikiProject Novels which articles are still missing, and mainly because it serves as a survey of works of literature with eponymous female protagonists. Minor problems—what should be included, what not, etc.—could be easily discussed, and resolved, on the talk page.
PS. If you look up my user contributions now it may seem I hardly ever contribute, but many of my edits were this list.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Speartip Alliance – Deletion endorsed – Daniel.Bryant 07:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I request that this article would be fully restored. It was deleted on reasoning that it was a gaming clan, which is true, but also the fact that it is non-nnotable, this however is not true. The 'gaming clan' is a group of Warhammer 40k players who were set up in Game Workshops recent campaign. The group wasn't unnoticed and whose actions were featured in several of the weekly reviews of the Campaign, although the group wasn't mentioned by name, and in the final international conclusion for the race that the group fought for: Medusa V Conclusion (Paragraph 7) The group is also mentioned in another Wikipedia article: The Imperial 12th Army Group which is basically our equivalent but on the 'other' side. The group also intends to have a page on Lexicanum another wiki encyclopedia. Thank you for reviewing our case and the group apologises for any inconvenience. Speartip 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The page was not intended to be about the group, i.e trying to advertise it, but about the actual object the Speartip is, basically it is like other articles on Warhammer 40,000 and not about the group of people who set it up.
That is what the subject is, it is in the world of Warhammer 40,000 a group of chaos lords who set up an alliance. Though as it was mentioned on the official warhammer website then surely it has as much right to be here as any of the other articles on things in Warhammer 40k such as the Medusa V article in which the Allaince was recognised in one of the campaign summarys (see original post). Just for complete clarification: what is calssed as a 'Gaming clan', I know what it is but I would be interested to know what the in-depth definition is. Speartip 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not intentional for it to contain information about the people. If this is accepted then I shall make sure the page has no reference to the people and only to the Alliance. You may be interested to see the page on lexicanum: The Speartip Alliance Speartip 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The notice on Lexicanum does make things look bad but it is mainly to do with the lack of sources which I have now provided, you can see that there is quite a lot of mention of the Alliance. The reason why I pointed out the article on Lexicanum is that it is somewhere where you can see what the article on Wikipedia would basically look like, with any required or requested ommisions. Speartip 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It is reliable as anything else to do with the Medusa V Campaign, Games Workshop could have not placed the group in the updates, as soon as it did so it became as official as Medusa V. There are no chatrooms on that sources list and if you are implying the group itself I request that you check my previous statesments on how the article will be about the written group and not the group of people. Speartip 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what any other administrators have to say first, if it isn't restored then i'll stick to the Lexicanum page. Speartip 08:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Administrators or Mods feel free to close this review 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:SerbiaFairUse, Template:MontenegroFairUse – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deletion was completely irresponsible. Person who proposed didn't noticed me, even this is not an ordinary template, but a product of specialist expertise. Any work created in Serbia or Montenegro may be used reasonably wherever if author of the work is mentioned. This is not the case for Florida law, but the case for the law of the country where work had been made. I am wandering what is the sense to contribute to English Wikipedia if there is no a minimum of cooperation between contributors. millosh (talk (sr:)) 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
23 January 2007
| Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is the second time around The article has been fixed tremdesly so I hope this time it will be restored. The only thing I could not find was another external link so I only have one, hope that's ok. You can find the fixed article here, make sure you look here before saying anything.Sam ov the blue sand 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Patty Columbo / Patricia Columbo – Endorse deletion, egregious WP:BLP violations and nominator has been indefinitely blocked – 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColScott, including this diff. Sources accurate (newspaper) Notability established...does not violate BLP since you cannot defame a triple murderer by definition Spawnopedia 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Coredesat, maybe you can learn something while roboting. BLP is about AVOIDING defamation of living people. Defamation involves destroying someone's reputation. By definition, a triple murderess in jail for 300 years HAS NO REPUTATION. Learn! Spawnopedia 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| List of tools for static code analysis – Deletion endorsed, new article created – trialsanderrors 00:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
10 minutes of no discussion is not consensus. BTW I'm not sure about the reason, so I want a real discussion! Cate | Talk 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| And The World Goes 'Round – Restore history under new article; no WP:CSD#G4 deletion has occurred, so nothing to review – 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
After I created an article for this notable off-Broadway revue of Kander and Ebb material, I was amazed to discover one once existed and was deleted after discussion by a number of people who don't seem to be particularly theater-oriented. I don't know what the original article's content was but I believe the one I created contains sufficient info to warrant its existence. SFTVLGUY2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia – Merge closure overturned, relisted at MfD – trialsanderrors 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Admin decision was to merge. Have another look at the MFD, and you'll hardly find consensus to merge at all! 5 people wanted it merged, and yet there are 30-50 editors participating in this. Can someone PLEASE urgently have another look at the MFD before the page is entirely screwed up?! Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Everywhere Girl – Deletion endorsed by established editors, redirect set – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Preemptive reminder: The AFD resulting in deletion had to be courtesty blanked due to content therein. Use courtesy here so that doesn't have to occur again. GRBerry 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
High profile article, generates lots of interest DLX 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Restore Article --Lawdy 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Over Turn!!! If the everywhere girl cant be here why can this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_baby
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.117 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
The Inquirer (obviously) 50 or more stories here The Stock Asylum - This publication is accepted as a news source by Google News. They use the term 'Everywhere Girl' in their story. They do not mention the Inquirer. The Stock Artists Alliance, a global trade organization of stock photographers, reported on the phenomenon. Notably they did not use the term 'Everywhere Girl' and they did not refer to the Inquirer (you can perhaps imagine how unsuitable internet search tech is for finding stuff like this). The organization sent letters to Dell, Gateway, etc. warning them that they had used the same stock photos. [76] (linked pdf documents may require internet explorer) Urban Dictionary The San Antonio Express-News here, requires a subscription to access the archives. Engadget Story referring to Dell/Gateway Girl. It does not mention the Inquirer or the "Everywhere Girl" - The Inquirer was not the source for this story (although it was the source for an earlier Engadget story). In fact, the website discovered by Engadget, applyesl.com cannot even be found on the Inquirer site. Engadget is accepted as a news source by Google News. As well all these sources, a simple Google search for phrases like "Everywhere Girl", "dell girl", "getty girl", and so on will find many, many other references. But it seems from the preceeding discussion that many of these websites, such as Ecademy or GigaOM, are defined by Wikipedians as 'blogs' or 'forums' - even though they contain original, verifiable research - and therefore they are regarded as totally irrelevant to this debate... and on that note, I hope you'll forgive me for adding that whatever the outcome of this sorry little debate, this is the last hour of my life I'll ever waste fixing Wikipedia's admin problems. Goodbye. -g 218.102.23.91 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.rbloch.net/index.php/weblog/more/everywhere_you_look/ http://www.brianbehrend.com/archives/2004/09/more_stock_foot.php http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=57857 http://www.joeycoleman.ca/archives/2005/04/16/u_of_m_dell_everywhere_girl.html http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Christian_Fundamentalists_upset_the_Everywhere_Girl http://www.visualeditors.com/forum/archive/the-story-of-everywhere-girl-5078.htm http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2005/stupid-stock-photography/ http://ligsy.stumbleupon.com/tag/the-everywhere-girl/ http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~rory/gallery/ http://brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ev/everywhere_girl.html http://www.luckypix.com/blogger/2006/05/stock-photo-girls.html http://commercial-archive.com/112042.php http://researcher.se/archives/2004/08/igen/ http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/11/wsj-on-companies-use-of-nonexclusive.html While the below WSJ article doesn't mention The Everywhere Girl as a specific example, it does highlight the stock photo overuse trend, for which TEG is the best tracked example. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-M7qaK32f_P0exg6tqL_QMsu6caM_20071128.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top --Wiremold 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Smoothbeats – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article contains notable content, hastily deleted before content added Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I am writing to appeal the protected deletion of the article Smoothbeats. Smoothbeats.com is a non-profit internet radio station dedicated to supporting independent artists, running on custom-written open source software which runs many large popular internet radio stations.
I'm curious as to which claims were made that need to be backed up by citations... I suppose that the claim of being an internet radio station could be backed up by citing hundreds of messageboard posts and blog entries that mention Smoothbeats, but simply clicking on the external link to the radio station and tuning in should suffice to prove its existance. Nobody has written any articles on our free open source broadcasting solution (except us), but that lack of documentation doesn't refute the claim that we developed it. Most importantly, I'm confused as to how this article on an internet radio station is any less notable than these other 168 articles in the Internet radio category, almost none of which provide any significant content other than a blurb on who they are and a link to their web site. Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
January 2007 (UTC). |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
22 January 2007
| Tubcat – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was AfD'd, no consensus. AfD'd again, and deleted because lack of proof of notability. It turns out that the Washington Times devoted an article to Tubcat and a "Russian challenger" on March 6, 2003. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=tubcat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thus, one can assume other legitimate references to it exist, making this article verifiable and more notable. -- Zanimum 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Rusty trombone – Keep closure endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was kept after its second AfD proposal. Was kept for "I Like It" reasons. Reasons for deletion are: 1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_trombone_%282nd_nomination%29. 2) Precedent set by Keep is very bad. Prairie Muffins (preserved here) was exceedingly better cited but deleted. CyberAnth 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
21 January 2007
| IS group – Request withdrawn – 01:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
OVERTURN Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group). I am a new newbie, interested in cognitive science. I ran across this one and was fascinated. As a newbie, I did not enter into the deletion discussion. If I had, here is what I would have said. Keep. Notability is clear. Reliable sources are adequate, but thin. The discussion was cool. I found it to be more fun and interesting than many other Wikipedia entries that I read. As a newbie, I was troubled that no one mentioned Please do not bite the newcomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers) and Be bold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages). The latter refers to updating pages, but as a newbie I would also encourage support for newbies being bold about adding quality information. This particular entry is of considerable interest (at least to those in cognitive science), reasonably sourced, definitely notable, and another newbie's first attempt at adding content to Wikipedia. Don't bite the newcomers. | Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| 2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – trialsanderrors 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed as delete. Delete votes were not properly weighed - besides "kick it in the pants," many cited a historical guideline proposal, the rest claimed "no notability" although keep suggestions indicated the obvious "notability" of a charting single. Deletion must be overturned badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hercules Cycle and Motor Company – Withdrawn – 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article deleted as alleged copyright violation, however content this cited was not duplicated from the external webpage - facts were taken from there, and other content based upon that site but rewritten 'in my own words' (as per WP copyright policy), and this was also combined with content from two other sources. The admin who deleted the page, Centrx did not place a proper notice (such as {{nothanks-sd}}) on my talk page to notify me - or even let me know which page it was that the problem was with, just left a non-specific accusatory message. Rather than specifying any particular sections of the article with which Centrx had a problem he (or she) just deleted the entire article. Article appears to have been speedily deleted - it doesn't appear to have been listed on the Copyright Problems page (WP:CP) prior to deletion or had an RFD. Note that the page the information was sourced from, http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/hercules.htm, has been altered recently. The older version is (at the time of writing) available in the Google cache. Mauls 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Jeffrey Mishlove – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The admin Jaranda abruptly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove, and deleted the article, citing WP:IAR as his(?) primary justification. The majority of those who voted in the brief RFD period before Jaranda closed it voted to "keep" the article. The article was in the midst of active discussion and revision by good faith editors (admittedly, it had some problems with unsourced material). However, it is clear that Mishlove is a well-established figure in the world of parapsychology. A large number of verifiable books and articles by Mishlove were documented, he is the host of a national television program, there is evidence that he holds a unique PhD in Parapsychology from UC Berkeley and his been the subject of magazine articles, there are 36,000 "google" hits for the guy. I request that the article be restored. BTfromLA 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Nihilist anarchism – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion review is about the term "nihilist anarchism" which is claimed to be a "neologism" by user Tothebarricades. I dispute this with sourcing and notes. Others claim this is in "essay" form, which is incorrect. It is an expression of the notes that I placed during the deletion. I understand that cleanup was necessary for the article, but I also feel that attempts to achieve cleanup were not taken seriously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist anarchism and no attempt was made to engage my points while I was attempting a clean up, a summary of this can be found at Talk: Nihilist anarchism and is detailed below:
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold; it's all right. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be. Bring out all information that you can." This is also asked of administrators and was not attempted. The "discussion" on deletion failed to bring up any direct points that were questionable. Original content was claimed to be the problem, but nothing was cited, so the entry could not be fixed to avoid deletion. No suggestions were made. Based on the rules for consensus, all are to agree, though administration determines "consensus", this did not occur. If specific points were brought up they could've been answered, like most entries, cleanup would've been possible. Information was verified with sources, original content was dismissed by notes and there was a neutral point of view that did not present bias, touching all the key points for deletion, removing a basis for it. Rough consensus was also not achieved. Dominance in discussion was not weighed properly, attempts to clean up were made during the deletion process and no conversation challenged my attempts to clean-up. According to the rules of Rough consensus Administrators are to determine dominance. However that dominance has some guidelines which were ignored ""dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course)." A general sense of agreement cannot be determined when there was no attempt to engage any of my points. "*Delete" over and over is "persistance" without substance. I offered a quality response to these calls, but there wasn't even an attempt to dismiss my points. I am logging administrative abuse because of this.Brokendoor 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) I am requesting an undeletion and I am willing to be bold in cleaning up this entry. I can note the "neologism", I can change the name to "nihilist anarchy", I can shorten the entry by linking to the appropriate histories of the Russian Nihilist movement, the Narodnik and the International Workingmen's Association, adding the appropriate history to the congresses from the "influences in anarchy" section of nihilist anarchism. I can also link to Friedrich Nietzsche, Last Man, Übermensch, The will to power and use notes from an external "nihilist anarchy" site resource to express this. I can expand from the previous entry into the influences from Situationist, Post-left anarchy and Green anarchism. I can write up a critique of civilization using a variety of sources connected with the previous mentioned entries, which also plays a part in developing this tendency. Also, I can count in the influences from Postmodernism and other theories that fall around Existentialism and Nihilism. However here I would detail differences between the theories as well as similiarities. Basically, this disserves review at the least, reinstatement if possible and I am willing to work with administrators with this because I am proposing an entry in a practicing form of anarchy that draws influences from a variety of sources, which have been implied as similiar, but have only formented as both an influence (like most anarchist theories in the U.S.) and a specific tendency several years ago. The announcement that this tendency was real and defined occurred in "Nihilism, Anarchy, and the 21st Century" by Aragorn! an editor of Anarchy magazine and contributor to Green Anarchy magazine. John Zerzan and other editors of "Green Anarchy" also play a part in its developing growth and some (not John Zerzan) have identified as nihilists in this magazine and other journals. There have also been several articles written that are posted online that pretain directly to nihilist anarchy that aren't found at pistolsdrawn.org, such as High Priest Wombat's "Nihilism and Women" and Felonious Skunk's Contributing to Momentum Against Civilization. This is an attempt to expose this development. Journals like Green Anarchy and Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed discuss this tendency at length and they are the first and second largest anarchist magazine distributed in the United States. I also feel that WikiProject Deletion or Deletionism caused a rush on the process which was unnecessary. This intentional project can be hostile to developing entries and it make me uncomfortable as a learning wiki-editor and I'll go on record saying that. Please consider my points and my attempt to create this entry. I would like to engage administration so that this can be made possible, either through reinstating the entry or giving details on some of the points I made above. Brokendoor 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Shrubya – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Someone deleted this as "unlikely typo". With 31,000 Google hits, the name "Shrubya" is not very "unlikely" to be typed in, and this is no typo! --Wiwaxia 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Stirling Newberry – closed, was on DRV last week – 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't see it meeting any speedy delete reasons; not WP:LIVING, {{db-bio}}, or {{db-attack}}.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry – Speedily closed, still at AfD – 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was just created and got a deletion notice just five minutes after it was created[77]. This article didn't meet the Before nominating an AfD requirements and is completly User:Woohookitty over reacted [78]. This article is just going to be deleted for not being given a chance to be looked over by other users to clean it up. I had hoped this article would work out after I created this article but User:Woohookitty had to change its path without giving this article a chance. --Gndawydiak 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
20 January 2007
| Eye of The Keeper – Deletion endorsed – 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Eye of The Keeper was deleted by Mistake. I cannot find my original posting in any records. It was posted by me, Mv7000. If you can find it, please undelete it. All information is truthful and verifiable at www.eyeofthekeeper.com Thank you. 74.96.112.217 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Geody – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The administrator User:Bogdangiusca (who features the logo of the Italian terrorist group Red Brigades in his user page) deleted and locked this article, without even voting about it. Geody is a geographic search engine widely used especially together with NASA World Wind (in fact note that some users in Talk:NASA World Wind were surprised it was removed and then happy when it was recreated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltener (talk • contribs) 19:58, January 14, 2007
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Camp Poyntelle – Deletion endorsed – 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Non advertising material, want to fix it BRappy55 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Job for a Cowboy – Deletion overturned and replaced with new version – 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Recently failed deletion review and was told to make on a user page first. This has been done and has everything we could find for them. It is here. It was moved back to the page due to my mistake early today, as I added this review in RFPP instead of here, this resulted in it being moved back to the userspace. The two albums still have their pages, so the Band should have theirs so they all link together. There are less notable bands on Wikipedia, so these should also be added. I understand not all the information is cited correctly on the page, so if anyone could add extra cited info it would be useful aswell. Moreover, there have been different edits to that page, so an older edit, might be better than a newer edit, so may need to be reverted. AsicsTalk 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Noureddine Maamria, Dino Maamria – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was nominated with a multitude of other players who failed to meet WP:BIO (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Woolford). The question of Dino Maamria's notability was raised in passing during the discussion, however I believe it was not fully addressed. Having played for Charleston Battery and Tunisia U21s he may count as a borderline case. Robotforaday 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Proteus (WAM-V) – Overturned per discussion, to be listed for AfD – 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington with the reason of Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. We had a civil discussion here about this and we agreed that this should go through a community review. My argument for significance can be found on the article's talk page. I believe that the version in my userspace should be restored to the original location. Fosnez 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Hell Yeah – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Since the article was deleted and pretected to prevent people from recreating it, the band has launched a website, been on the cover of Revolver magazine, released two singles (one to the radio and two are on myspace), and their album will be released on April 10th. In otherwords, there is a lot more information out there now than there was previously, and as such the article should be allowed to be created. Tedivm 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Further more, the band Hell Yeah is actually at the heart of a series of articles in the most recent (January/Feburary) Revolver Magazine, focusing on new releases for the upcoming year. While it may not seem it, Hell Yeah is very important to the metal community, as Vinnie Paul is coming back, and he is a legend of the scene [Pantera, Et all]. Atechi 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Matt Norman – Filmnews2007 has reposted this yet again, and removed the PROD tag, so it's now at AfD – 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Significant article on a film-maker who is notable Filmnews2007 06:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Hi there Could you please review your deletion of an article I put up that you deleted. Article Matt Norman Below is the opinion of another administrator? Thanks in advance.Filmnews2007 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Original message Re. Please tell me why you have deleted my entry - third time? Hello. I believe that the article in question is Matt Norman. I did not delete this, but after checking the deletion log I can inform that it has been deleted three times by three different administrators. The reason stated for deletion was the speedy deletion criterion A7. This criterion states that an article may be speedy deleted if it provides no assertion of notability of the subject. After viewing the last version of the article I believe that it did assert notability. I recommend you to take this article to the deletion review and try to have the deletion overturned. I hope this helps. Regards,--Húsönd 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reedit Matt Norman article. I'm not trying to do the wrong thing here but can any of you please view it and tell me its simple enough to be used in historic content in regard to Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Filmnews2007 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Cookie diet – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I remember looking at this article once and it looked like a regular article.... I came back to look up something today and its gone!! At least, I can't find it anywhere, I didn't see any deletion debate.... anyway, if its been deleted by accident or for no apparent reason, it should be brought back. Its reported on ABC [82], NBC [83], etc [84][85][86].... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:Good article – Speedily closed, repeat nomination without new information – 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Personally, I do not know the circumstances of the template being previously deleted, I feel that good articles do deserve some recognition as featured articles do (even though GAs are not at the same level as FAs). Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
19 January 2007
| Stirling Newberry – Deletion endorsed, troll blocked – 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Stirling Newberry claimed that a fair and balanced view of his biographical info on the web was "Attacking" him and "libeling" him even though it was verified through numerous third party sources. We can't allow someone to get their biographies deleted because it doesn't present them in the 100% positive light that we all desire. Turbulantsalad 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Do a simple search of him on Google, he's notable, and there's both positive and negative information about him out there, the article presented both. Turbulantsalad 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) A copy of the deleted article is posted at Stirling Newberry/workshop
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Eraser (software) – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It is notable. I believe this software to be notable, I've heard about it many times, on many forums I've seen people that have claimed to use it, and seen several times people recommend it and mention it.
The notability is unquestionable. -- Frap 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| 123 Pleasant Street – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article survived a first AfD with an overwhelming majority of users supporting keep. A first DR was opened and closed in one day with participation only the nominator and one user. A second AfD was held, this time with opinions of both keep and delete. Delete had a mere majority but not even a super-majority, let alone a consensus. Article meets requirements WP:Local and has numerous cites, high G-hit count and one substantial source from a local print media with a circulation of 30,000 documented on a website. Editors of this article have committed to continuing improvement. This article should be undeleted because it has sufficient notability and verifiable sources to survive AfD, there is no honest consensus to delete and proper procedure has not been followed. Nominator is additionally concerned that deletion represents a thwarting of consensus Edivorce 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Rogers Ltd., Inc. – Restored and listed at AfD – 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I created this page based on a link on the Middletown, Ohio page. Rogers is one of the top 20 biggest jewelry retail chains in the US, and is also historically significant in the area (which is why somebody else thought it notable enough to be mentionned in the middletown page). If the page is undeleted, I will be sure to mark it as a stub and will keep expanding it. jh75
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Atticus Clothing – Speedy restore of non-copyvio, non-General-11 revisions. – 11:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A notable clothing company. I found an older version on answers.com and I think it was deleted because it sounded like an advertisement (a section of it was a copyvio from their website). If restored, I'll cleanup the copyvio and add a bit to it. kollision 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Brastel – Deletion endorsed – 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| christianforumsite – Requester appears content happy with rationale for deletion – 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Can you please recreate the article on camp poyntelle i believe it was deleted for no reason. There was an article on christianforumsite which was removed because it lacked popularity. However, I am putting this site for review because it has grown much larger than it previously was and this site appears on top lists of Google, Yahoo and MSN searches for the keyword 'christian forum'. Hence this site can be associated with this keyword. Please check this out and its alexa ranking to see if the article that was one deleted, could be restored.
131.172.4.45 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Constitution Society – Deletion endorsed. – 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
New article being written in stages Jon Roland 00:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC) This is a fairly prominent organization, founded in 1994, whose website is at or near the top in searches on constitutional terms, and many sites and organizations link to its extensive collection of online reference material.Jon Roland 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(Copy and paste of entire article removed. -- Steel 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
18 January 2007
| List of United States Representatives from Minnesota – Redirect closure overturned, further discussion at WT:USC – 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| MSM-07 Z'Gok – No consensus closure overturned, article deleted – 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It's high time admins started ignoring WP:ILIKEIT votes and actually began closing debates on policy. Votes with reasons such as "Suit plays a strong role in the invasion of Jaburo from the Original Mobile Suit Gundam" should be discounted. Nor should votes that say "keep because too many similar nominations all at once" be held to contribute towards any meaningful debate. This article violated and violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:FICT. Many of the keep votes were gained through meatpuppetry soliciting on an external fansite: see [90]. Overturn and delete. Moreschi Deletion! 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. – Deletion endorsed – 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There was an on-going discussion of the controversial deletion of the MWHS Mami Wata Healers Society Page of which the admin has not presented convicing evidence that the article was in violation of wiki policy or in need of iimprovement. Although there was a "concensus" of having the page deleted, we believe this effort is being spearheaded by one of the admins in retaliation for us contributing heavily to an article he has written. The MWHS has presented legal and foreign documents of its legitamcy and its notability to the Diaspora communities.None of the "voters" are of the Diaspora nor of the the religions of which we pratctice. When we went to post more discussion, the arricle was removed compleltely without our being offically informed of the final discussion or outcome. We cannot notify the admin because we do not know who deleted the page. (posted by Syrthiss, as Mwhs (talk · contribs · count) had not moved the template outside the commented area) 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Ragnarok Online jobs – Deletion endorsed – 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was created to make the Ragnarok Online article shorter. Jobs are one of the most important and distinguishing components of gameplay according to Gravity itself and thus any deletion of said material represents an attempt to deny a quality article to be written about the game. If you have a problem with material which is accurate and in the attempt to document an important subject of the game, I would advise listing all Dungeons and Dragons or Final Fantasy articles discussing classes for deletion as well as removing all mention of characters or classes from the articles in question in question. And before someone comments, the subsection on "Bandit" was both inaccurate and vandalism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
17 January 2007
| Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy – Deletion endorsed – 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Rename and edit I hope will overcome problem. Also many other pages link to it and need it for information Article was deleted because it's name was "Analaytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy". Restoring the article with a new name "Analytic and Continental Philosophy" is proposed. Any content disputes can then be handled by normal editing. Lucas 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems that wiki is even more conservative than mainstream media and printing where alot more has been said on this issue; it cannot handle interesting or controversial issues if it just deletes by majority vote, since after 5 days of delete review 4 were for keepoing it, 7 against (which was coordinated), that is not even a 2/3 majority but it was deleted still. The act of suppression I take as a serious infringment. Editors have been able to work on this article and remove any particular point they see fit. There is no reason to delete it there have been many reasons to revise it. Also the article has received references from outside wikipedia, also one person on the talk page said it was the most informative they've read in philosophy wiki (which mostly just trots out old saws) It is referenced from many wikie pages, Analytic, Continetal, Philosophy, etc. --Lucas 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Irish Tenors – Edit history restored behind recreated article – 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was speedy deleted as "not notable"; But, the Irish Tenors are definitely notable. Others were working on this article and had placed the {{hangon}} tag, so I think the deletion was out of process too. This article was on my watchlist, to be created at some point. The Irish Tenors meet WP:BAND, at the very least "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network." Their concerts have been broadcast numerous time on PBS. [92] They also have other media coverage: [93] [94] [95] and further google search turns up more. And, they play at major venues such as Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts in the Washington, D.C. area [96] and Liverpool Summer Pops in the U.K. [97]. I don't like to wheel war, but think this is a clear case. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd – Deletion endorsed – 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Give us achange to prove that the actual site is notable, don't delete the friggin' talk page! 80.222.183.225 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Spazio, Tempo, Eternità – Userfied by deleting admin – 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Proxy listing for Marce1979 who re-created the page with: please recover this page, i have started my translation before the deletion and when i have saved the page is already deleted. Was deleted by Tijuana Brass as CSD A2. Flyingtoaster1337 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland – Deletion endorsed – 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
After many discussions with User:Metros232 who deleted the links section on the main Cumberland, Maryland page against that pages' talk page, I moved the links to it's own page to find some middle ground with User:Metros232, instead it was nominated for speedy deletion. These links pertain to Cumberland and the Cumberland Metro Area, are informative and have further information on topics discussed in the main page, and have been discussed in the Cumberland, Maryland talk page and the consensus was to leave them be. I would like the page deleted to be undeleted, at best the links be allowed back to the main page...but undeletion will work for me. SVRTVDude 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| rec.sport.pro-wrestling – Deletion endorsed – 10:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
deleted despite consensus TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There have been many entries that go through AFD and are kept as "no consensus" with an even larger margin of voting. The fact is the entry listed its sources (more than one) to verify notablility which the closing admin IGNORED. Coupled with the fact the whole process of this AFD was started as a bad faith nomination by a banned user who had been trying to ruin the entry for over a year. The entry even went through a period of clean up supervised by TWO admins who concluded the entry was properly notable, cited, and sourced. TruthCrusader 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Skulltag – No credible reasons advanced for overturning AfD and previous review, debate is becoming surreal. – 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Premature deletion despite posted info saying article was going to be updated in minutes.Catman847 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I had this posted a mere 3 minutes before it was proposed for deletion. Doesn't it seem that most normal people wouldn't be wanting to delete an article after it was only on for 3 minutes? It seems like the person proposing the deletion was waiting for this to pop-up so they could have it deleted. Also, the Keep-Delete vote was ignored (5-3 in favor of keeping).
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Template:WoS game – No consensus closure endorsed – 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I realize it's taken me a bit to bring this to DRV, but I don't think it's too late. This template was closed as "no consensus". However, I believe that many who spoke in the discussion failed to understand the nature of our copyright policy. We are deleting YouTube links left and right because they might have a copyvio, whereas, this site nearly always has proven copyvios of downloadable Nintendo games: see [104], which is linked from our Bubble Bobble article. I added this link at the end of the discussion, but no one had time to look on my argument before it was closed. Patstuarttalk|edits 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Statement from closing admin: My decision in this case was slightly more complex than simply viewing a mix of delete and keep votes, and then labelling it "no consensus." Patstuart made a good point when he cited User:Dmcdevit's essay/project on the deletion of all WP:EL non-compliant YouTube links. I agree with both Dmcdevit and Patstuart on this issue. However, the implementation of Dmcdevit's initiative has been marked with controversy, and has been occasionally characterized as unilateral in nature. I felt that even though the template should be deleted, there was no consensus in the TfD debate itself, especially given that the best argument raised in favor of deletion has been judged controversial at best by the community at large. Regardless of my personal opinions on the template, I felt that it was not within my latitude to close the debate as delete. If the template in question had been an overt violation of policy, I would have invoked WP:IAR against consensus in order to benefit the encyclopedia, but in this case I did not feel the template in question fell within those bounds. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: Bubble Bobble on the ZX Spectrum was published by Firebird Software, who are owned by British Telecom. World of Spectrum has explicit permission from British Telecom to distribute their material: see http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showwrap.cgi?permit=houses/BritishTelecom.pmt (you'll have to copy and paste the link to bypass the anti deep-linking script). While there is an issue as to whether BT were within the rights of their licensing agreement to grant that permission, I think this shows that the issue isn't as simple as is being made out. Yes, a lot of the material on WoS is formally a copyright violation, but I'm not convinced that means we should delete the entire template, which does have legitimate uses. (Disclaimer: I am one of the maintainers of World of Spectrum). --Pak21 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Endorse and keep: While I agree with Pak21 that the case for Bubble Bobble for the ZX Spectrum is not a clear cut, along with a great many other titles, I removed the link a week ago when the issue was raised - just to be on the safe side. This is what should be done for any links which editors believes are copyvios, whether they are templated or not. The people responsible for the site to which the template links, do a great job in obtaining permissions, and it's incorrect to asume that a violation is in effect just because it is possible to download a particular game from WoS. Permissions have been granted from many individuals and companies (http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/). BTW: Bubble Bobble is not Nintendo property, but Taito. --Frodet 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Lil' Sonic – Deletion endorsed – 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was deleted as CSD A7, but its creator wishes to dispute the deletion so I'm listing this on his behalf. He wrote on my talk page [105]: I understand that you needed to know why he is notable, but to clear things up, I am Lil' Sonic. Many rappers ask why me, as the youngest producer who has been given good reviews by signed musicians like Jin and Jojo didn't have a Wiki telling all about me, how young I started etc.. so skeptics would know how long I have been performing etc.. In fact a fan was the one who informed me that the page was deleted.. and that they thought their computer had a problem or something, then I got your message.. Can this please be reversed? I notably was the youngest and currently the youngest hip-hop producer in New England. That has to count as something, also because I make music that is compared to the best of the best, not to be bigheaded but i'm told this on countless occasion, please review my request and take your time to decide on any action. Thanks. Google hits for "Lil' Sonic": [106] Flyingtoaster1337 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
16 January 2007
| Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) – Article recreated with references – 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. The criteria used to justify deletion was inappropriate for the article in question - also the article documented the forthcoming release of what is in my opinion a notable single (first in three years) by a notable artist. I asked the deleting admin for his reasoning behind the deletion but have received no reply as of yet. Kurt Shaped Box 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| G.ho.st – Deletion endorsed – 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
new text as follows TareqM 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :G.ho.st, prounounced ghost, is an online operating system that provides users with a Virtual Computer space. Ghost is an acronym for Global Hosted Operating SysTem which captures the key idea that the operating system is hosted in a data center and available globaly through any browser, in contrast with traditional operating systems which are installed locally on a specific computer.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| GamerWiki – Endorse Deletion. No consensus to overturn deletion. – 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Now a substantial size (significantly larger than Encyclopedia Gamia) with mentions in The Guardian (UK) and the Accenture Digital Forum in addition to GameCentral on UK teletext and within Retro Gamer (UK magazine). Tim 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Bud Delp – Non-copyvio versions restored – 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame Horse trainer - I'm going from memory as it was a few days ago but I believe this article had a copyright violation notice and someone must have deleted it without seeing that I had come along afterward and edited it properly and removed the copyright violation tag. Please undelete this and I will double check it to ensure it meets proper standards. Thanx. Handicapper 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Able and Baker – Deletion endorsed, replaced with a redirect to Monkeys in space – 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a pre-emptive listing on deletion review, as I anticipate that at least one adminstrator who disagrees.
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Che-Lives – Deletion endorsed – 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
regular editors were unavailable, page notable as per google rank and BBC articles on che referencing the forum as proof of his popularity [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| MKULTRA Pop Culture – Cruftmungous fork is justly deleted, debate can continue on the parent article – 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
improper use of AfD Wyatt Riot 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
| Jon Roland – Endorsed by multiple people, patient explanations to the subject-and-author can be continued on his user talk page. – 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was resubmitted with different content to satisfy the established requirements for notability. The original article was created by someone else as a stub, apparently based on the subject being a candidate for public office in the upcoming 2006 election. Although one can understand that after the subject has been a candidate and not won his level of notability might cease to qualify him for inclusion, there are many other notability criteria the subject does satisfy, which can be easily verified by a web search. For example, he has been the subject of a chapter of a book written by a prominent journalist, Jonathan Karl, then a reporter for the New York Post, later a correspondent for CNN, and currently a frequent on-air reporter for ABC News. Furthermore, the subject has a prominence based on his work as editor of the digital editions of most of the more important works of constitutional history, law, and government, including most of the works of the Founders, the works they read and cited, and commentaries by their contemporaries. These online editions are not mere copies of work done by others. They are authoritative scholarly edits (some in progress) that have caused others to cite those versions as authoritative, and in some cases, unique. Most of the other copies online of these works began as copies of his work, often without attribution. That work has led to the site being linked to by many other sites, which has put the site at or near the top of search engines, and led to recognition as a leading constitutional scholar, evidence by being invited to write articles for encyclopedias, speak to conferences, and submit articles to various journals. It is suggested that on future deletion reviews, the subject be contacted and afforded an opportunity to respond to arguments for deletion. That was easily done for the subject here discussed, and was not done. The reviewers should also take the time to do a search on the name, which would have yielded abundant material to support notability, or to follow the links provided by the contributors, which often provide justification by reference that are not repeated in the body of the article, in an effort to keep the article concise. Jon Roland 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I protest the statement that I have had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for "notability". I don't keep scapbooks of such things. I selected one that came to mind, and was by someone the administrators are likely to have seen on television. I don't have long periods of time to add content in response to such demands, but must find time between other projects. Yet you consider a few hours since I added that content as "ample opportunity"? I can and will add additional sources when I find them, but that could take several days or weeks. Further, nowhere did I suggest that living persons are more notable than dead ones. I never discussed anything like that anywhere. My scholarly work is all about bringing to the public the works of notable persons, most of whom have been dead for centuries. I am loathe to assert my own "notability", preferring to let my work speak for itself, but when someone creates the article as a stub, and many people discover it and ask for content, then they tell me it has been deleted, I feel a need to set the historical record straight. It is not about "Jon Roland" but his work and the work of others in the Constitution Society. Unfortunately, the tendency of too many people to argue from authority rather than considering work on its own merits is difficult to escape. Dismissing the worker disrespects the work, in this environment. I also object to the summary deletion of the article on the Constitution Society, which it appears is somehow related to this action by the administators. The Constitution Society is a real organization with real members and real activities, the evidence of which is online for anyone to examine. More people read its materials than read all the textbooks in all the lawschools, and its influence is real. That has to count for something unless there is an ideological agenda at work here. Jon Roland 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
One more point: If it is your intent to allow deficiencies to be corrected (even if you don't take the time to notify the submitter of such deficiencies to give him a chance to do so), then how is he supposed to correct deficiencies if there is no article he can edit or his submissions are blocked by a protected status? I can understand if the hassles of administering a site like Wikipedia make you somewhat impatient and disposes you to make summary decisions, but there comes a point beyond which impatience becomes abusive. I have been intervening in several cases against judges who, perhaps in a mood of impatience, have been riding roughshod over due process protections and the rules of judicial procedure and conduct. Become too arbitrary and the public is going to start rejecting Wikipedia the way they are beginning to reject the justice system. Jon Roland 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
One of you has already aknowledged I have one, the book by Jonathan Karl, who devotes a chapter to me, and who, besides being a correspondent for ABC News, has credentials as a historian in his own right. He is notable enough to have an article of his own, although I don't know him well enough to write it. He has interviewed me by phone and on television, but I didn't have much time to ask about him.Jon Roland 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not just contributors who may have a justiable interest in what is published on the site. Consider the revelation of sensitive information about someone else than the contributor. Information needed to steal his identity, for example. Or revelation of the location of a protected witness, or of a whistleblower for whom it is the government that is the threat. The possibilities for "when did he stop beating his wife" aspersions are endless. In the words of Cardinal Richelieu, "Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
Jon, the solution here is pretty simple. Cite third-party reliable sources (scholarly legal journals, major media outlets) that have covered you and your work and no one here will contest their validity or notability. If you can do that, which ought to be a fairly simple task, it will be quite easy to get the articles in question restored. If you cannot cite such third-party sources, you have no argument, period.--chris.lawson 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |