Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a speedy deletion template that was deleted by Fastily under the T3 criterion as unused and redundant (although it is not specified to what it is redundant), and it is used and recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for non-admins who cannot move over redirects to malplaced disambiguation pages. Note also that the T3 criterion includes a seven-day grace period, and I am pretty sure that it wasn't tagged with {{db-t3}} for seven days before deletion. Fastily was not contacted before this DRV because it says on his talk page that he will be away until late November. Logan Talk Contributions 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was created for an assignment for Univversity and was deleted under speedy deletion regulations, and we never got the chance to contest the deletion. Also, we found our sandbox had been deleted which we believe is a violation of our rights as wikipedians. RuthyRainbow (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Briefly: Notability has been the issue. It was fixed. Then deleted for recreation of older version. In Detail: I am a student at FIU and need some help with one of my recent projects; to create a wikipage for Bert Oliva(motivational speaker, etc.). "Bert Oliva" was deleted because they said it was a recreation of an older version. I worked with other people including screwball23, c.fred, and others on creating new material, verbiage and references. To be honest "recreation of an older version" is actually a recent issue, we usually get the notability problem. However when we thought that we gave it enough support it was taken down in 2 weeks. How can I get this turned around? I think this wasn't a valid deletion and I am just in need of some help putting it back up. Also I'm not sure if helps the situation further but Fastily, the deleter, is on a month long break, conveniently right after the deletion, and it does say on his talk page this: Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions. Hope that helps. Thank you very much for your time and help, it is greatly appreciated! Michaelparks (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Note: article temporarily restored for visibility at DRV. The most recent version is here and the version deleted at AfD is here. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The essay, WP:AADD, is not followed, although it is not a policy. The
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I remember of a page on this topic about six months ago which I consulted after a talk discussing the notion of post-New World Order at a University in Taiwan. I have now found a mirror of the original article new New World Order (politics) . I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Does this very aggregation constitues Original Research? Actually if the article had been published elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in the French language... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
PunBB is well known open source software with 8 years history. 1) the software is used by millions of people and thousands of sites around the world, hence deeming it popular; 2) Google search returns a lot of websites when you search “Powered by PunBB” - discussion boards and sites with extensions developed for PunBB. If it wasn't a significant project, then Google would not return as many results; 3) Facebook Developers were using PunBB engine for a long time, therefore it aided in creation and advancement of Facebook as we know it, pretty significant; 4) There is still an article on FluxBB on Wiki that wasn't deleted after a deletion discussion, hence it is only logical that the project that was foundation of FluxBB should be described as well; 5) there are many books in Google Books about PunBB, nearly 119 items are returned, with at least 6 solid books that can be quoted and referenced. Last 3 month we try explain this to moderator who deleted page, but no results. Its strange and looks like personal interests or double standards. Dimkalinux (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse my speculations. I`m have not much time for discussion in last month because of personal issues. Im just not understand why on deleted PunBB page keeping redirect on page for software with less sources and less well known (its not making its bad). We try get answer to this simple question 3 month. Anyway, our primary goal is restoring page. Many PunBB users waiting for it. What we can do for make possible restore PunBB page?
|
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. |
Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, the deleted article clearly includes multiple published, non-trivial, reliable, intellectually and otherwise independent secondary sources.[6][7][8] Therefore I believe at least five editors on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies are mistaken and this deletion should be overturned. Dualus (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was speedily deleted under A7. This is a total misuse of the CSD. The subject is the Principal of the Presbyterian Theological Centre. This is certainly an assertion of notability, and probably passes Criterion 6 of WP:PROF - "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution". The deleting admin referred to WP:NOTINHERITED, which clearly does not apply here. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Not appropriate for speedy deletion. Admin Phantomsteve supported speedy deletion because "The first two references appear to be press releases - so not independent. I can see nothing to indicate their significance..." Notability (if this what is meant) is a non-criterion for speedy deletion unless the article gives no "reasonable indication" of notability. In fact, the article -- which was newly created -- was supported by references to articles in two national journals, complete with link, date of publication and byline. Phantomsteve first claimed that the articles were "press releases". Since on examination this was unsupportable, Phantomsteve claimed they might be based on press releases: this is speculative OR and -- even if correct -- overlooks that use of press releases by journalists is standard practice; it's why press releases exist. Speedy deletion is for articles which are unambiguously inappropriate and have no chance of being made encyclopedic. In this case it was premature, and the reasons given are inoperative. WebHorizon (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is an image taken by me from my book स्वाधीनता संग्राम के क्रान्तिकारी साहित्य का इतिहास Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas(Part-III) ISBN 8177831224(Set) page no 863. I am the author of this book and also hold its copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain. You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email) Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is an image taken by me from a book सरफरोशाने वतन Sarfaroshane Vatan published in 1999 by Swaraj Bhawan Bhopal (India). This book does not have any copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain. You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is also a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email) Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion for this article was closed on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg (talk) and re-deleted by Jayjg on 23 October 2011, with the decision that may not have reflected the significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. There were four delete and one redirect on 25 November 2009. Beside it being deleted on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg. I would like to know the reason for the deletion of Tinchy Stryder's song "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)", by Jayjg once again on 23 October 2011, after 4 years and 7 months of the song being released as the first official single from Tinchy Stryder's debut studio album Star in the Hood on 9 April 2007?. I have left Jayjg a message on their user talk page, but I have yet to receive a reply to the explanation of the article being re-deleted. The reason given for deletion on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg was that the song lacked notability to Tinchy Stryder. But here in 2011, I have collected this Twitter status from Tinchy Stryder from 18 October 2011, clearly confirming that the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" is a notable song to Tinchy Stryder after 4 years and 7 months. Here is the Twitter status of the song confirmation, just click on this link ----> http://twitter.com/#!/TinchyStryder/status/126257795321430016, so what I'm trying to get at is that if Wikipedia administrators such as Jayjg are deleting articles or not including songs that a notable artist clearly states as one of their notable songs especially one that is the first single from their debut studio albums, then what good does it do to the artist work throughout their music career and for people using Wikipedia as a verifiable and correct information website or encyclopedia on peoples. I find it amusing that the website http://www.grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Breakaway and http://www.grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Star_In_The_Hood gets the information about Tinchy Stryder and his 2007 single "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" and 2007 debut studio album Star in the Hood more accurate than that of Wikipedia. I would possibly go as far as to say perhaps people should visit that website for a verifiable biography of Tinchy Stryder. Please if you can possibly now un-delete the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder)" Wikipedia article that I have recently re-created for this reason I have stated above. Thank you.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Arguments from those who voted keep are based on knowledge of soap operas and their entities, NOT on establishing notability of this article's subject. However, it was a non-administrative closure by Rcsprinter123, and the arguments that favor merge have become less reliable in the wakes of recent events, such as removal of "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" under WP:G12. Honestly, the latest keep argument points out merely the reject proposed policy on fictional characters. I thought: arguments appear insufficient to conclude a discussion;
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm new as a Wikipedia editor. I registered a few days ago, soon after discovering that a valuable article that I had consulted previously had been deleted. The article is about a contemporary philosopher, Stephen Palmquist, who, in my opinion, is one of the leading experts on Kant’s philosophy. I located the deleted version, then read the Talk page that ended in the initial deletion decision. I then uploaded my significantly revised version, with numerous changes that I believe satisfy all the requirements of Wikipedia's Notability rules, as I understand them. To my surprise, it was deleted via speedy deletion, without any discussion of the merits of its significant revisions! Dao4Andrej (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It is not covered in South African Standard Time, the deleter User:Jimfbleak didn't even bother to make a statement in the talk page, where it clearly says "Namibia is NOT covered in the article South African Standard Time.". TZ master (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
First, I'm a novice at wikipedia and probably will not have the proper editing in this request I find working in Wikipedia very complicated and difficult. So I beg forgiveness in advance. That being said, please consider restoring this page (Donald Braswell). It was deleted with a speedy delete without any discussion. I requested it be restored and it was, but before I knew it was back, it was deleted again without discussion and I was not able to modify it. The info in the article is accurate and sanctioned by the talented gentleman I'm trying to honor, but he has been relatively unpublished. He authenticated the data in the article. Could it be put back at least with a brief mention of his achievements that any of these sources can help show that he did exist and was important in his day and enhances the information in wikipedia? Couldn't the pieces that people don't think are documented well enough just be deleted from the article, rather than deleting the entire piece? In my discussions with the admin who did the final deletion, he (politely) felt the additional sources were not enough to overturn the deletion and that there had to be more documentation than this. I'm hoping someone will help me get the page in acceptable format and restored with at least a minimal mention of his career on Broadway. (Without making it a full time job for me to do it.) I do hope those reviewing this deletions will read the original article (if they know how to find it, which I don't). Thank you. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald Braswell, Sr http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald Braswell, Sr./a/albums.htm http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/ http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042 http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_bra swell_sr.html http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li'l_Abner_5574/ http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don Braswell.htm These are the factual highlights of his career that I had in his wiki article, but there is little out there to source it. 1946 Singer/Entertainer At 17 years old Braswell, Sr opened the inaugural ball of newly elected governor of Louisiana, Earl Long 1952 Singer/Entertainer The Vic Dimone Show, Fort Bliss TX 1952 Singer/Entertainer El Paso Symphony Concert 1953 Touchstone Shakespeare's play "As You Like It" - A. A. Milne's play "The Fourth Wall" 6/1954-6/1955 Singer, dancer, & sailor The musical "Fanny" (on Broadway with Florence Henderson) 1955 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The musical "Li'l Abner" (On Broadway) 1956 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The Ed Sulivan Show - episode with skits from Li'l Abner 1956 Filch The opera "The Beggar's Opera" (at the Met) 1956 The Soldier The opera "The Soldier" by Lehman Engel (At the Met) 1958 Finalist Competition with the Met San Antonio Career: 1960-65 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Cantor High Holy Days 1960 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Handel's "Mesiah" 1961 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Verdi's "Requiem" 1962 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Saint-Sans Christmas "Oratorio" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 Freddie The musical "My Fair Lady" 1965 Gangster, Guts Regan Ayn Rand's play "The Night of January 16th" 1968 Cocky The Texas-Mexico Border Tour with the San Antonio Symphony Concerts 1968 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Concert 1968 Singer/Entertainer Hemisfair concert with the San Antonio Symphony (World's Fair 1968) 1965 Balthazzar The opera "Amahl and the Nights Visitors" 1966-69 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Children's Concerts 1972 Pertruchio The musical "Kiss Me Kate" 1974 Hajj The musical "Kismet" 1998 Singer/Entertainer Shreveport Symphony Concert (Louisiana) Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrong to speedy since reason given, "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", does not apply because the criteria for A10 deletion were not met. Article was also speedied a very short time after creation without a chance to discuss. Deleting admin has so far refused to discuss his rationale, other than to say he endorses another editor's remarks. I initially recreated the article, but have re-deleted it to request deletion review. Please see also discussion on the deleting admin's page. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
DeleteThere is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.RaintheOne BAM 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Grossly wrong to delete it since "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Time_zones)" is not met. TZ master (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This close by SilkTork gives too much weight to the keeps and is very biased. Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) shes an autotune singer and isnt notable. SlickTork is a good writer but to biased in close Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
First of all, there were 18 deletes to 15 keeps and most of the keeps were not policy-based, but instead explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV. There are several policy-backed arguments for deletion, which the closing admin does not appear to have read or understood given the discussion on his talk page - he seems to be ignorant of WP:POVFORK, for instance, claiming that content is never a reason to delete. Further, the closing admin, instead of judging the consensus, made new (non-policy-backed) arguments not found in the discussion as the reason for this decision, meaning this doesn't seem to have been an actual review of the consensus, but a new keep vote masquerading as a closure. So, I don't think the closure can be trusted, so let's review the arguments actually made. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main articles, which we have three other ones of. Compare this article to Global warming controversy#The mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it, where all the arguments in the quotations in this so-called "list" are discussed, the major climate contrariansd are namedd and discussed, and all that you could say, in an NPOV wand sourced way about this subject is put in context in the debate, instead of only presenting one side. Putting a half-arsed explanation of the mainstrream position in (without giving the evidence FOR that position) does not balance the article, or make it anything but a WP:POVPUSHing WP:COATRACK. There were sources given on the "keep" side, but none of them was a list of this sort, and all they showed was that global warming denial arguments were notable. However, that's why these arguments are covered in great detail in global warming controversy, including naming the notable scientists. NONE of the sources provided was a list of this sort, NONE of the sources provided went into this much detail about the number of specific contrarians, and all the arguments the sources covered are covered in global warming controversy. Insofar this isn't WP:Original research, making a type of list that has not been assembled anywhere else but Wikipedia, this is a WP:POVFORK. Further, such lists are a long-standing tactic in fringe circles, see A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism (and I believe similar ones have been made for things like smoking supposedly not causing cancer), so we're actually fostering a WP:POVFORK that takes the form of a known type of propoganda, but one which doesn't even have a notable example in this field off-Wikipedia. After six years, it's time we said enough already 86.** IP (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Um. If I were comfortable that would not be taken as tacit agreement to Delete, I might agree. However several people have been arguing for "Overturn and delete", which I strongly disagree with. As I'm now going offline till Monday, I'm rather reluctant to change my vote and come back to discover the article deleted. In general I would probably support a further process to consider the correct closure; AndyTheGrump seems to understand the point I'm trying to make. --Merlinme (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example: (Closing admin had been contacted)Curb Chain (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example: Article was deleted because there were no references but this is not a reason for deletion but for fixing. Closing admin was contacted per Step1. Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The explanation of the subject's significance was in the lead. It was an important, even if short-lived band and the AllMusic refs provided all the explanation that was needed on that. Speedy deletion in such cases, I think, is something quite unacceptable. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A topic for a List of important publications in law does exists for example: so a restore than a move to the new name is requested. I have asked the admin, but it seems that he has left Wikipedia for some time. Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
During the course of the deletion discussion about a replaceable non-free image, a free image of the same subject surfaced (File:Flying Yankee 1935.jpg). This, per WP:NFCC#1, replaced the non-free image. With a free image of the same subject located and replaced in the applicable places, the deletion discussion for this non-free image was inexplicably closed as "keep" by Fastily. This seemed faulty because a free image had been located of the same subject, thus the image fell short of WP:NFCC#1 since one had been found, and WP:NFCC#7 because it was no longer being used. When I contacted Fastily about the close, the response that I received was, "I don't think you need me to go into details, but there was never any consensus in the discussion to delete the file." Thus it seems as though policy, specifically WP:NFCC, was disregarded in the forming of this close, and therefore it should be overturned to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
At the time I got involved in this, there would have been no photo of the train at all if the vote was delete. Thought it would be a shame to lose the only image we had, so I managed to find the free use image. Seeing what's happened as a result of that, I regret doing anything. Have been actively trying to add free use images so there are more choices of free use content, thus in some cases, enabling replacement of the non free images for free ones. NFCC #1 asks the question whether the free image can have the same effect as the non-free one. If we take an example of the moon landing, a NASA posed photo of the 3 astronauts could never have the same effect as a photo of the astronauts on the moon. The same is true for a performer, an athlete, and many non-animate items. Seeing a publicity head shot of the person or a publicity photo of the item doesn't have the same effect as seeing the item or person "in action". Understanding of what this item or person did is greatly increased by including an image of this type, if possible, and if cited commentary is present to warrant it being used. NFCC #1 has an "eye of the beholder" implication in the "same effect" statement. One person may see it as meeting critera, while someone else will not, which is why there are discussions before files are deleted. We are not going to be able to eliminate all non-free content for this and other reasons, but need to try to make more free use images available that may serve to be adequate replacements for some non free photos. We hope (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You now leave me wondering if you have ever actually looked at the subject image which uniquely illustrates both the "Flying Yankee" train set and the iconic Clock Tower and train shed of the Portland Union Station, the most important historic railroad landmark in Portland, Maine, the railroad history of which the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article is about. The generic image shows only the train set which is not the same thing at all. That is the difference between the two images: only the "non-free" one includes both the train and the station as well as actually illustrates the unique historic relationship that forever connects them. "A picture is worth 1,000 words." Centpacrr (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
(I don't think the admin closed poorly here, but other considerations lead me to DRV this after speaking to him.) A sparsely-attended AfD resulted in the article on this West Wing episode being deleted early in 2010. However, not only is it literally the only episode for which we don't have an article, it also appears to be the only episode that was ever even nominated for deletion. To me, the lack of interest in deleting the others (before, after, or even during this AfD) implies a tacit consensus to cover episodes which overrides this individual AfD - consistency, and the failure of the AfD to serve as precedent for deleting similar articles, suggest that the article should be restored. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Upon request, I contacted the National Archives and had them e-mail Wikipedia to confirm that scans from the SS record microfilms and free and public to use on this site. The archivist who e-mailed me advised that he never got any kind of a reply from Wikipedia. He e-mailed the permissions address, and a copy of his e-mail was transcribed here [36]. These SS record scans are not copyrighted, yet every few years there seems to be an effort to delete them. I ask that this file be undeleted. OberRanks (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion was closed as no consensus, but I feel as though it should have been either relisted or closed as delete. I informed the closing admin of my plans to take this to DRV. There were a total of four editors who expressed an opinion in the debate, with three arguing for deletion and only one arguing for the template to be kept (the template's author who "voted" twice. My reading of the arguments for deletion: First, the template is orphaned, and different than all the other templates in Category:Romania municipality templates. Second, we already have a Buzău County, Romania template. Third, the additional "component villages" navigation is useless since these are all red links or redirects. I did not express an opinion in the debate, but would be happy to if given the chance. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
different from other templates. In any case, it has nothing to do with the municipalities, is was created for communes.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The non-administrator ItsZippy closed the discussion and resulted it as redirect to List of All My Children characters. However, there is a difference between that page and List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. The closer did not interpret the arguments very well. Also, there should be reverts from what was already done. Many of those whose votes go for merge or redirect suggested List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, full of miscellaneous characters' brief summaries, as the candidate rather than List of All My Children characters, a brief list of ALL characters. I would say overturn to merge into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The main arguments for this page's deletion "non-notable local team" (registered 16 March 2011) and "lack of notability" (registered 19 March 2011) are no longer valid. As of 12 October 2011, the Galveston Pirate SC are members of the NPSL (NPSL announcement here) and are therefore as notable as the scores of other NPSL clubs with their own entries. Mrcrumley | Talk 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Fastily deleted File:OTAShirt-Front.png and File:OTAShirt-Back.png after it was pointed out they contained elements that were not "suitably free for wikipedia", and the images had already been updated with Public Domain artwork. The user has disregarded requests to restore the files in question. Belg4mit (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Fastily deleted File:OTAShirt-Front.png and File:OTAShirt-Back.png after it was pointed out they contained elements that were not "suitably free for wikipedia", and the images had already been updated with Public Domain artwork. The user has disregarded requests to restore the files in question. Belg4mit (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The artist released a solo album that charted on the Billboard Latin and Tropical Albums chart. Source. Erick (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I created a company in 1993/1994, due to acts of a collusion i was not able to sustain the company in my name, I wanted to make an article to gain public interest. The interest i should gain could aid in justifying "anyone's claim made against me" "to my company Tidy Trax". I have not used any Materials the discussion Highlights of the Current Companies Logos, or copyrighted Materials, I originally made a Wiki Page that could be edited By me and with ideas of other Wiki Users who could have edited the on the age what they did not think was liturgical . before i could continue to Edit the brief Article, people made comments on minor errors that i had made. I dd not see the reasons provided for the deletion of my article Tidy Trax a violation/Breach of Wikipedia guidelines to result on the Article to be deleted. The people who requested the article be deleted refuse to join in to the fun Wikipedia advertises for people to be able to discus/change/Edit articles people post in Wiki. I see the Deletion of my article to be canceled, this would be fair. this would let me full use the skills Wiki has for users to abide by. I wanted to highlight that the Article I created was created with full intention's to have Wiki members participate in editing the page , The people who made a commercial disputing against my post are having fun, gaining satisfaction by abusing the resources, every one involved in Wiki Promotes there web pages, and promotes commercial disputes. I decided to create an Article that could be edited without harassment from other Wiki users . If the Speedy deletion is canceled , then users would be able to use the Article i created as Wiki explains people can do Vaio12343 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm here again speaking on behalf of a person who tried many times to give people what they deserve. I have been blocked for disagree so i couldn't participate in the last 5 days of the discuss and as the result it has been delete by false claims. The debate at AfD can be seen here. Many people said it has 2 sources but it clearly has 5 sources. If not include one source from Wikipedia then it has 4 sources, 4 articles. Two of them talk only about him and the other two talk briefly about him but for all four he is a main subject of the articles. Some people said they vote delete because they want to honor him. I think it's more like of insulting him if you delete the article about him. Some people claimed like no one is going to read this or no further expansion is possible, Wikipedia is not a place for futuristic predictions. Plus the policy clearly says the result will not base on amount of votes. Then what is a reason to delete this? The Afd didn't reach any kind consensus. As many people admit he does barely touch the requirement for notable (for myself i think he is for sure met the notability) then if he did meet, barely still he met it, it then i don't see any reason why they vote delete. It's not a matter of how much famous is he but does he qualify for an article? Barely = yes to me. For some people they claimed he (the subject of the article) requested a deletion for his article. As far as my reading goes i never see a single word related to that matter. The closest statement he said about it is he disagrees about he is famous enough to qualify for an article, which proven his modest right here. Why don't you just give what people what they deserve despite their modest? However there are some valid reasons, some people simply don't see him notable enough, i disagree with them of course but well after everyone has a right to express opinion. We each have different perspective on the subject. Why are so sure that the delete decision is the best in this case? That's not neutral point of view. Since there is no real consensus the result should be no consensus, it clearly says as one of the Afd policy. The article should be kept for future discussion if needed. The AfD result is unfair as far as i can understand. The result is caused by false claims, futuristic predictions which can't be proven and misunderstanding. Hope the community thoroughly read and understand my thoughts and share my motivation to fight for what is right. Trongphu (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
After the AfD, I tried hard to find references for the article. The group of nominations where procedural as List of important publications in biology had been recently deleted. I realize that each page must be assessed on their own. The Keep arguments are that there are references can be found for this page, but none had come up, and results may not come up as easily as other topics because of its narrow scope and the fact that the list groups 2 topics together, "network" and "security". On a contrary note, adequate references had come up for List of important publications in mathematics because 2 sources which complied a list of important (however this is interpreted) mathematics works was found. What I'm saying here is that a source has complied a list and noted and explained why such a list was important. Another source has done this too. This makes it notable for inclusion on wikipedia. I have discussed this with the closing admin but received no reply.Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no consensus to delete it. Talked to administrator at [40]. I believe his closing rational showed mistakes made on his part. Dismissing the single purpose accounts is irrelevant, since there were three keeps and two deletes with few other edits ever. That isn't a significant number. 17 people said it was notable enough to keep, there references found in reliable sources such as Wired magazine, and 12 said it should be deleted. Those posting after a relist do not have more sway than those posting before it, that rational making absolutely no sense at all. Dream Focus 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
i have already provided Refrences , External Links Correctly & even the administrator Checked that all . Then , why still There is nomination for this article .
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was, and is continously deleted on the outcome of a deletion review 'discussion' (I put that was itself highly dubious and subjective. I am creating this review because the previous review did not allow for enough time for rebuttals, and believe me there are many, to be made to the grounds for deleting the original Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club page on any forum on wikipedia. On to the meat of this deletion review. The grounds applied for 'notability' are extraordinarily impractical for a club that operates anywhere outside test playing countries. Also the 'lack of coverage' cited by the author of the original deletion reflects more an unwillingness to scour local and regional press outside his locale than an actual absence of coverage. With these pithy words I hereby declare this deletion review open. Kimemia Maina (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E are both satisfied given the unusual circumstances and sustained coverage in a myriad secondary sources, not to mention the creation of a film (Amanda_Knox:_Murder_on_Trial_in_Italy) which ironically does warrant coverage. Furthermore it's not fair and may even be libelous for us to immutably redirect the woman's biography to a murder she was acquitted of -- samj inout 21:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Shirtwaist, our BLP policy does not stop us writing biographies of living persons. It stops us from writing negative, unsourced content about living persons. Amanda Knox has what her prosecutors called a "million dollar publicity campaign" behind her, and one of the results of that is that there are lots of sources for her biography. Statements that are well-sourced and neutrally-phrased cannot contravene BLP.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I can think of at least one section that wouldn't fit with the MOMK article. A section on "Knox and the media". There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss how the symbiotic/parasitic relationship between Knox and the media. The sad reality is that Knox is now more well known (just as in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case) than any of the other people involved in the murder case. But, since the murder article can't be just about her, we need to have a separate article. I've said this before and I'll say it again that the article is going to be a mess with all sorts of POV and BLP issues, but that doesn't mean we run away from it. --regentspark (comment) 14:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Redirected. Until Amanda Knox has done something other than:
At the moment Why else is she notable? What else has she done? Jalipa (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
*Overturn - GoodGravy, She is notable ! Turn on your TV!--Truth Mom 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Rough count: Over 70% in favour of overturning. There is obviously no consensus to delete/exclude this article at all, she is extremely notable and everyone knows it. No relevant policy has been cited which supports the exclusion of this article. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that she is notable and covered by reliable sources such as dozens of biographies/books and even a film, and sustained media coverage for four years now. I suggest we just go ahead and create it, and if someone disagrees, they can take it to AfD. Mocctur (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Completely out of process deletion, almost the personal whim of the admin concerned, no prior discussion, nothing. Should be overturned immediately. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I can't see how the consensus was to delete. The closing admin has called it a redirect (though that wasn't mentioned in the discussion) and has explained here that he thought the consensus was to delete. But I think it should be undeleted (or unredirected) since there was no consensus to delete. StAnselm (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |