Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 6

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2012 January 5
2012 January 7 >

6 January 2012

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mind and Life Institute (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would like this article to be restaured, so as to correct the problems. Thanks in advance,--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as an advert and upon searches i can't find reliable independent sources. So I'm unsure how this could be anything but. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than 300 on google schlolar [1]. I suppose some of these are worse to use. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable though and how many are actually about the place rather than passing mentions. I think it may be possible but you may be better getting it moved to userspace to allow you to work on it to see if possible and move if ready. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me. Can you please move it so as to keep the history to User talk:Rédacteur Tibet/Mind and Life Institute ? thanks,--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't but thats the best approach gives you time to work on it without risk of deletion. Im sure a passing admin will do it for you but i have left a note on Fastilys page asking if he will kindly do it. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that the File:MindLifeInstituteLogo.jpg (and related reduced-size images) risk deletion on 12 January. I indicated on the talk page of that file why it should not be deleted: "This logo was used by the page on the Mind and Life Institute. That page was deleted. However there is no doubt it will be created again with renewed content (but the logo image will be used again). The page on this institute is part of the WikiProject Organizations, and it was listed as a popular page on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organizations/Popular_pages, which supports the claim that the page will be recreated. As a consequence, the logo should not be deleted.". Who could take action on this, in case restauration happens to be done only after 12 January? RobleQuieto (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RobleQuieto. Can any Admin. move the Mind and Life Institute to User talk:Rédacteur Tibet/Mind and Life Institute so that the history is saved? Thanks, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It doesn't meet G11: It's clearly not "exclusively promotional". Also WP:COI does not mean that the editor can't work on it, as erroneously assumed here. Finally, Rédacteur Tibet is an editor in good standing who obviously has done good edits outside of this article. The article does need independent references, though. — Sebastian 21:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It dosent appear to be overly promotional but is in a pretty bad state. Needs a lot of work even to prove notability. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added bibliography section with an article and 3 books that contain independent references that I'll exploit to improve the article. Other contributors are wellcome to participate. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Po Sum On (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Someone at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#PO SUM ON wants this article to be resurrected. To be honest, the deletion discussion lacks a possibility that the non-English sources may indicate notability of this "Hong Kong"-based corporation (http://www.posumon.com.hk/). The Chinese name is 保心安, and I used it to search for this topic: [2], [3], and other news sources. If anyone understand Chinese, that may be relieving George Ho (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin – If there are reliable sources that provide sufficient coverage, and there is a rough consensus that agrees with that, then I have no problem with restoring it. However, it is not up to the closing administrator to find sources in which those in or outside the deletion discussion have failed to do (otherwise, said admin would need to instead !vote in the discussion than close it). --MuZemike 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've crossposted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China in the hope that we can attract some attention from some of Wikipedia's several thousand Chinese speakers.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note: This is mentioned in also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong because the company headquarters are in Hong Kong. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I looked at the first of the links that George Ho provided, and it's about the company donating 1000 packages to the Wuhan traffic police - a nice idea for a PR action, but certainly not noteworthy in itself beyond the limits of Wuhan. The article reads as if it's just taken verbatim from a typical press release, and indeed, the newspaper itself is of doubtful notability. We have no article for it; not even in the Chinese Wikipedia. While its English name may suggest it being comparable to the Times or the NYT, its Chinese name "长江商报" translates actually to "Changjiang commerce newspaper". For all I know, this might just be a one of those free advertising financed newspapers. After realizing that the deleted article didn't even have a link to any Chinese sister article, I regret having wasted my time with this thus far. — Sebastian 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean, "Endorse deletion"? Anyway, let's search for this topic in other Chinese sources. There may be others that significantly cover it. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strictly, SebastianHelm is in accordance with convention when he says "keep deleted". In cases where the nomination statement doesn't ask us to review the previous deletion decision or the debate, DRV has an alternative function of supervising whether it's appropriate to recreate a previously-deleted article, so one would expect !votes in the format "keep deleted" or "allow recreation".—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about the misunderstanding. I know what you mean, George; "Keep deleted" sounds too much like "Keep". And thank you, S Marshall, for the clarification. So, to avoid any misunderstanding, I changed it above. Please feel free to delete this discussion that now has become moot. — Sebastian 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
East Turkistan Government in Exile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who closed the AfD, I have no opinion about the notability of the new version of the article, but I have concerns that the new version that is now being proposed is an exercise in advocacy rather than a neutral description of this movement. For instance, it contains this unsourced map which is apparently meant to represent the real boundaries of real countries. Given that there seems to be no editor at the moment who is interested in or capable of developing this article in WP:NPOV form, it might be better to keep it redirected to the leader of this movement.  Sandstein  19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realized the issue of the map. Since this page is about a government organization, I decided to delete the map and link the words East Turkistan to the Wiki page, where several sourced maps can be found. And yes, it would be great if there were other editors knowledgeable in the matter of ETGIE to "neutralize" the article, however the majority of people who are informed of or associated with ETGIE are predominantly Turks and Uyghurs who do not speak the English language. ETGIE directs almost all of its activity towards the Turkic community. Tewpiq (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the draft article clearly shows notability, so the result of the AfD has been superseded. Producing this sort of result is an ideal conclusion to AfD, and I think the new version could have been restored by any admin without needing to come here. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_January_6&oldid=1138438999"