|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
DRV "procedural close" has no procedural basis. As noted in the discussion, this was entirely wrongly "drafts being deleted out of user or draft space in ways that are contrary to policy and harmful the the encyclopedia". To then refuse to close it through made up policy wonkery doesn't resolve the actual issue. 166.170.46.62 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2016 (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. |
Procedural error: abrupt closure while discussion in progress prevents clarification of a key point and precludes evolution of consensus. I request a review of User:Sandstein's closure of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive as abrupt and premature (less than 24 hours after a signifcant comment), thereby preventing disambiguation of the basis for deletion, and for an incorrect summary of the ostensible consensus. I do not challenge the deletion itself (there was a general sentiment that article was crap), nor am I requesting that any material or the history be restored, I am requesting that the discussion be restored so that we may finish assessing whether the topic is notable or not. I believe it may be possible cover the topic with a suitable article, but this is precluded because the discussion was not allowed to reach a point of disambiguating the notability issue from other issues. I have discussed this with Sandstein; he refuses to re-open the discussion. I ask that the discussion be re-opened so that we may settle the point of possible notability. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (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 deleted this article today as a result of an AfD, and the original author re-created it without attempting to discuss the deletion with me, appending an explanation of sorts to the closed AfD discussion. I could just speedy the re-creation per criterion G4, but I figure that the matter is likely to end up here in any event, so I'm bringing it now. Do the additional sources in the re-created article (most of which I can't read, as they're in Turkish) justify the re-creation, or should the article be deleted again? Deor (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (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 deletion of useful content. My plan was to start a separate article. Now the draft article is gone. -- Taku (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2016 (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. |
No actual discussion here. The "procedural close" excuses are just another attempt for the admin Corp to cover their tracks. As discussed at WP:VPP, there is no support for the deletion of userspace drafts. 166.171.123.100 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2016 (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 language PureScript has gained rapidly in popularity, there are companies using it in production now symbolian for example, and it has a thriving ecosystem including a package manager, a documentation website and a book. It would be useful for people to be able to get an overview of it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libscott (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
References
|
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 nomination alone isn't an actual discussion. No basis to delete. 107.72.98.187 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2016 (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. |
No basis for deletion made. 107.72.98.187 (talk)
|
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. |
Should have been history merged not deleted. No basis for deletion 107.72.98.187 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2016 (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. |
No basis for deletion expressed. 107.72.98.187 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2016 (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. |
No legitimate basis for deletion. We shouldn't be driving off content creators. 166.170.51.134 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (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. |
Deleted under U5 but this is not in userspace. Can't be a userspace violation in Draftspace. 166.171.121.173 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2016 (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. |
G13 deleted but not an AFC draft. WP:REFUND is for AFC drafts so it must be restored to work on. 166.171.121.173 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2016 (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. |
No need for deletion (since this draft article has not been abandoned. Taku (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2016 (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. |
Image will be used in an image gallery that displays historical logos for the item's subject and includes written history in conjunction with the images (e.g. Network Ten#Logo and identity history. Spoke with admin Diannaa (originally deleted the file) who directed me here. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:25, 23 January 2016 (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 speedily deleted, but a deletion discussion would have been in place. Procedure was overly hasty, without any notification up front:
I discussed the matter with the deleting admin User:DGG and with User:Tokyogirl79. We don't agree on notability and the value of the provided references. The conflict of interest matter has been discussed as well. I myself failed to follow proper procedure regarding COI, which I am willing to correct. It should be noted that this conflict of interest has never intentionally been hidden. Michieldewit (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a single third party source at all. Of the ones added subsequently:
| ||
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. |
From the creator of Draftspace, If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong. This deletion was wrong. 166.170.49.77 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2016 (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. |
Article was deleted as being promotional, or not notable. An earlier version of the article did seem promotional (and subsequently deleted), but it had since been re-created. The last version of the article (before deletion) didn't seem particularly promotional to me. User:Bookish.krish also indicated this on the XfD page. The XfD mentioned notability and using as evidence the lack of third-party references, and that most references were based on press releases. However I'd like to dispute that claim. The article had no first-party references (only a minor citation to quote their response to the hacking incident). The article had one reference based on a press release (as citation for the in itself unnotable tech award). For awards we quite often use press releases as citation. Neither of these events (hacking incident, and tech award) is supporting notability of the subject. Though as coverage of the subject on Wikipedia, I think it made sense to mention those two events. Notability of the subject can be supported by the reference to TechRepublic, and by various other publications. Here are a few (all in search results from the "Find sources AFD" XfD page template):
I could list many more if I go beyond the first page of search results. Recommending undeletion. Subject is noteworthy, and deleted content seems larger than a good stub, to be further improved upon. –Krinkle 22:58, 19 January 2016 (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. |
In a somewhat unusual move, I'm requesting the wider community to scrutinise my own RfD closure by raising a DRV, after Legacypac discussed the matter with me. The RfD concerns two redirects from obscure words to a common word from which they're derived: Perfumedly, Perfumingly → Perfume. A slight complication was that these redirects were created by Neelix, which is an area subject to much ANI discussion in recent months. The head count was 7:3 towards delete with solid arguments on both sides. I closed it as "no consensus, default to keep" as I don't think there's sufficient consensus to delete; Legacypac disagrees. I think the main arguments have already been threshed out and we agree that relisting at RfD again will likely generate a similar ratio of head count. So my question for the DRV community is, that at what level of majority or argument strength do we move from no consensus to action? Deryck C. 22:35, 18 January 2016 (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. |
Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC) References
I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version.
Original AfD--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (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. |
Wikibreaking (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Be very specific in your claims. Which part is wrong why? Wikibreaking (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC) References
I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version.
Original AfD--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (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. |
Song was popular in the 1980s but artist has no article of his own. Is this a requirement for his or her songs or works to be listed on WP? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2016 (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 page was deleted by User:Spartaz. I participated in, and was surprised at the outcome of the discussion. It was relisted once, garnered two further keep !votes, and then was deleted. I asked for clarification at User_talk:Spartaz/Archive21#Toby_.27TobiWan.27_Dawson, where Spartaz justifies his dismissal of all keep arguments referencing interviews. He states that interviews, despite being published in reliable sources, cannot be used to justify notability, following his interpretation of the essay Wikipedia:Interviews. I think that his interpretation is wrong, and that there is no consensus to delete the article. Here's one of the interviews referenced - http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9208657/valve-dota-2-commentator-toby-dawson-interview That's The Verge, a professional publication with no connection to the subject. TobiWan is the focus of the article, he is not a talking head passerby. That The Verge would profile TobiWan is a reliable secondary source saying "TobiWan is notable". Whether or not TobiWan's statements can be taken as reliable in the interview is irrelevant at AFD, that he is the subject of reliable independent coverage is not. - hahnchen 23:09, 15 January 2016 (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 see ACE & Company's page was deleted while I was making updates. I actually don't get the reason why. Indeed, all of the statements were totally objectives, stating true facts like the year of creation, the founders, assets under management, the type of activity, investments made, etc. I just added close to 15 new sources from Techcrunch, KPMG, Private Equity Wire, Tech In Asia, Deal Street Asia, Irish Times as well as renowned swiss newspapers and magazines such as Le Temps, Bilan and AGEFI to make the article more consistent but I wouldn't even have the time to share my point of view on the subject. In the meantime, this page had been reviewed and was online for nearly 3 months before the speedy deletion nomination was made. Wish I could get a proper explanation. Waiting to hear from you. Sincerely, Angelina Kramer (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2016 (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's being argued at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_German_supercentenarians&diff=699827145&oldid=699680549#People because no one put a notice at the German supercentenarians page that the discussion was going on. GreatGreen is the manager of the German page and is a major contributor who should have known about the discussion. The German page has her biography now so it should be restored and the text moved back. 107.72.99.57 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (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. |
My article "Isleños in Louisiana" was removed with the excuse of that it appears to be a direct copy from http://america.pink/islenos-louisiana_2120190.html However, the article was not a copy of any web page. I will write here what I put on my talk page, because according to her it is here where I should put. The administrator who removed the article might have realized that through the article references. The "source" that she indicate was a copy from Wikipedia (indeed, this "source" only includes copied information of free web pages. All the information of this online encyclopedia is a copy of such pages. This indicates the page in question). For that reason my article had the references from where came its information since its first edition, while the page that, according to she, was copied by me, have no reference. She might have seen it for herself if she had see the first editions of my article, with their references, and had compared with the page that according your opinion was copied by me. The article was written slowly. A portion of the article (Texas, Louisiana and Florida) was originally written in the article of "Isleños" (it was written by others). In this article I added more information for months, based on many sources. Eventually, I decided that maybe I could already do an article with the information of the Canarians of United States, that was in the article and was wrote by different users (part of this information was written by others; part was written by me). I asked for advice on the talk page and users agreed. So I published the article "Canarian American". After publication, over time, I added more information based on more sources and creating different sections (for example, in the article of the "Isleños" was spoke about the Canarians from Texas, Louisiana and Florida, but I incorporated to article of "Canarian Americans" the sections "Culture", based on a book that I have in my house). Later, I posted the article "Isleños in Louisiana" based in the "Isleños in Louisiana" section of the "Canarian American" article. Some information of the article you can find on several page back in the "Isleños" Article History (Historial del acticulo). Obviously I deleted the most of information of the "Isleño" article about the Canarians in United States to post it in the article of the "Canarian American" and after in the article of "Isleños in Louisiana". I did Not copy from any source. In the article "Isleños in Louisiana" you could check the sources from which the information comes. The source that she think I copied simply have no references, and its content is based on other websites, as it was indicated in the page "about" of this source. The removal of an article with the false excuse that is a copy of a web page is totally unfair, because that is not true.--Isinbill (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2016 (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 page in question is of a notable subject as per Wikipedia policy.From my studying of the AFD the editors who participated in the AFD did not do a proper scrutiny of the reliable sources that clearly established the notability of the subject as per WP:RS.I would like to request an undelete so that any other editor including me are given an opportunity to reason with the other editors why the article should be on Wikipedia. While at it, the necessary improvements shall be made to the article if needed. If after that the article still fails WP:GNG or WP:BIO then the process of deletion can follow afterwards. Thanks you in anticipation. Aha... (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (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. |
Formal majority of !votes was without rationale arguments. One with incorrect statements, and two not arguemented ("I agree"). Akim Dubrow`s arguements are wrong if consider other language sources :Рамиль Гарифуллин (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So deletion was unclear and very formal--Rad8 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (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. |
Consensus was not reached and discussion was closed with no rationale stated by closing admin, though was later provided upon request on closing admin's talk page here. However, the rationale provided doesn't reflect the discussion/consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (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. |
unclear if there is consensus, would like the page relisted, if possible ReneeNal (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2016 (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 should not have been speedy deleted 3 days into the AFD. Stated reasons for speedy deletion do not apply. {{Db-g5}} states that if "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice," I intend to fix it, and was attempting to do so when the article was deleted. G10 does not apply because the article was extensively sourced. I can make the article NPOV before the AFD would have ended. I attempted to discuss this with the deleting admin. I am in good standing to create this deletion review,[10] but I have to ask that someone else be the one to notify Ricky.[11] HoorayForAmerica (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I have been cleared by CU.[12] HoorayForAmerica (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2016 (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. |
Closed by a !supervote based on one person's argument of copyright, that a list of dates of objective birth and death dates can be copyrighted when devoid of commentary, contrary to Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. and Wikipedia outcomes for other lists. This is not a list of "best supercentenarians" or "most awesome supercentenarians" which would be pure subjective commentary. Closer is a lawyer, but not a copyright lawyer, and even if was a copyright lawyer, not a copyright lawyer ruling for the Wikimedia Foundation. As a reminder we have List of films considered the best which we use under the pretext of fair use. Any best-of list is commentary, unlike BoxOfficeMojo which uses ticket sale data to rank films. Ranking people by the number of days lived is not commentary, it is objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The filer added another point after all the comments above this one [13] which is pretty bad form. In response, anyone with experience in Longevity knows that 'verified' is code for 'GRG verified' and that GRG keeps changing these lists as they add or delete names based on an unknown to the public set of criteria. Any attempt too add any name to such a list that is not GRG verified is strongly objected to. Therefore this list is not Objective because it is a Selection of GRG Verified people who died within an Arbitrary time period from an Arbitrary subset of Countries in the world (the GRG does not endorse claims from about 20 of the 25 most populated countries for example). This is very different then all names and phone numbers in x city which involves no selection. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2016 (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. |
AFD was only for two days, no check user so no one even knows if it was a sock, multiple keep votes means it should run the course plus it was on the front page of Google news so it was a current event that people cared about. 166.176.57.11 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (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 speedy deletion criterion doesn't apply; it was not a test page. Taku (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2016 (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. |
Majority of !votes were delete, and were policy-compliant. Keep !voters confused the "Male Escort Awards" (given out c.2000 by the non notable "Male Escort Review" with the "International Escort Awards" (given out c.2006 and later by the notable Rentboy). Redirecting the name of one award to an entirely different one is simply introducing an error. If we're going to to mention these two pseudo-honors (a separate debate) we ought to, at the very minimum, be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2016 (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 the closure broke WP policy which states: Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The discussion clearly failed to reach consensus, with roughly half of the respondents supporting each position. The closing admin chose to focus on only one of the arguments given for keeping the article, ignoring the others: that the subject is notable and there are scholarly monographs devoted to it and that the article contains encyclopedic content and should be improved rather than deleted. I've brought up the issue with the closing admin who referred me here. Eperoton (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |