|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I have no idea how anyone could say there was a clear consensus on this decision. There was no clear consensus for a merge, at best it was no consensus (or alternatively the deletion page should have been left open for another 7 days to get a better idea of consensus), and the dismissal of anyone's view who suggested keeping the article as a "single purpose account" is rude. Deus et lex (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2020 (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. |
Reason 5. I'm in the process of just trying to archive some past work of mine. I wish to recover these past projects of mine and have the chance to save these old projects to a different Wiki. The article was originally deleted without any true reason, and although I understand the rationale, I do not know what rule of Wikipedia's the article was breaking. Seeing this doubles down on this thought. Users are permitted to use their own user space for experimentation that includes trial pages for templates with the purposes of being a kind of personal sandbox. Looking deeper at Reason G2 for deletion, "It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It also does not apply to pages in the user namespace." I personally considered this content of mine to be testing/experimental content. What I am puzzled about though is posting "blatant vandalism" onto one's own user sandbox. However, Wikipedia states on the issue, "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." I clearly was not undermining my own purpose of my sandbox article and I believe that the original deletion ignored the assuming good faith. And if I may be completely honest, I really just want to be able to save what was once on this page to move it to a different Wiki. I don't mind if its content is deleted again as long as I can save it. I guess it's an atypical sort of request, so I hope I posted this in the correct forum. Thanks! (Edit: And to clarify on the 2015 deletion discussion, by "future projects" I was meaning to move this content to [[1]], but in the end I was never given the opportunity to transfer) Not David Brown (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (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. |
Reason 5... Just take a look at the reasons for Keeping that a non-admin unfortunately bought into. "I've listened to his videos while editing Wikipedia", "He popularized We are Number One, The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy among other things. He deserves credit", "Is an extremely active channel with its almost hourly posting schedule, which is what differentiates it from other parody Youtubers without Wikipedia pages (even the more popular ones)", etc. Nuff said. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2020 (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. |
Reason 5: Article was deleted for failing to meet notability requirements (WP:NMG), however discussion centered on the question irrelevant to notability of whether the subject ever existed. The discussion should have been relisted at 7 days (WP:RELIST) so that relevant discussion from more users could occur and a consensus could be reached. Instead discussion was closed on the 8th day. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2020 (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. | ||
From the closing admin's talk page:
Cunard (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2020 (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 was thinking of doing a Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because this is part of a broader issue but I think it is not appropriate to go to ANI before doing smaller steps first. The issue is that a group of users go edit ninja for any article that are seemingly negative concerning India. This same issue happened with another article I was not involved in
|
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 AfD process was a mess. It was closed Once as delete, and silently reopened, Then it was closed a Second time as Keep and then reopened again. This latest closure is not a correct assessment of editor consensus. The closure is a WP:SUPERVOTE - the closer chose the arguments of the most verbose editor. This is a no-consensus AfD and there is no prohibition on any editor starting a new AfD. I ask that this third close be overturned to no-consensus. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
commenting in article: Closed and re-opened, please leave any close/reopen to an experienced admin. Thankyou. Serial Number 5...Articles for de... 4d" which is more detailed than the thank log, is not publicly available, and the text could easily have been manipulated by me. As Eastern Railway zone (and stuff Howrah Junction stuff) and Eastern Rail Services are similar I can possibly understand your disremembering.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2020 (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. |
Hi, Satheesh Menon’s wiki page was deleted without proper review. If I need to create new, I have to rewrite all of the content with pictures as I don’t have a backup. Below is the url I saved. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Satheesh_Menon_(Actor) If you want articles of Satheesh in the internet, please find below or reach out to the Malayalam movie industry for confirmation. Innocent who was the President of AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists) might be a good starting points as he was in that role for over 20 Years when Satheesh was very active. Please remember he works in Malayalam movie industry and not Hollywood to figure in Time Magazine. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Satheesh-Menon https://www.nettv4u.com/celebrity/malayalam/movie-actor/satheesh-menon https://www.nowrunning.com/celebrity/70127/satheesh-menon/index.htm https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/satheesh-menon/IEIN018603 https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/satheesh-menon/IEIN018603/filmography There is an interview and news article in Asianet news - leading channel in Kerala which I can’t paste here as it in YouTube. https://www.topmovierankings.com/malayalam-actor/satheesh-menon It’s a shame that we are not allowed to paste YouTube links. His interview has come on Asianet News (leading channel in Kerala) and is posted on their YouTube channel. Search for Satheesh Menon Asianet news in YouTube. That’s a significant one you are ignoring!! Another link from gulf news though Satheesh Menon is spelt Satish Menon https://gulfnews.com/uae/satish-c-menon---local-stage-artiste-1.436229 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:1D08:2CAD:2D07:8F82 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The gulf news article is indeed his and you may contact then directly to clarify. Do you have Malayalam sources to bring into discussion? On the comment of the subject creating this article or someone close to him- “prove it” or don’t raise allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:1D08:2CAD:2D07:8F82 (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Apologies wasn’t aware of a timeframe to revert. This was overlooked amidst many other priorities, hence the delay. I assumed it’s all going fine without any issues until I realise the page is no more available. Does that have to do with anything on the improper deletion? Let me try and get some media attention on this by sending the story to leading diaries. Might help to establish if he is notable or not as well :) I will list only facts from this whole thing including the responses for sure and no “allegations” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:1D08:2CAD:2D07:8F82 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, what copyright violation are we talking about? May I know? Or are you discussing among yourselves in a language you guys understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:99B4:8E9C:F16A:4F71 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, can you point me to a location where the quality of article is listed? I can then compare and see how bad it is written. Secondly, as I said before rather then raising allegation of copyright violation, either you point out the sections or delete those sections and make the remaining bits live. If you can’t make that effort, make the whole thing live again rather than raising false allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:61AB:BEE7:4EC2:317D (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC) And what is that copyright violation again? If I am supposed to know it? Phew! At last I found a sensible person in this community :-) thanks mate for being sensible and pragmatic. If there was indeed copyright information, then please blank them and it’s an opportunity to correct them. But in terms of notable or not, if the links and local channel videos in YouTube (that’s where all of the channels upload past videos of the news articles), I suggested to reach out to ex- President of AMMA - Shri Innocent (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists) who reigned that role for 20 years during the period Satheesh Menon was very active. Shri Innocent was also a member of parliament in the previous Indian parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:99B4:8E9C:F16A:4F71 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I leave it...it’s a nexus!! My efforts from now on will be to bring this experience to people via social media. This is wiki for you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:2935:BD3C:94A9:DB2A (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (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 redirect discussion was improperly closed by a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC) and should be reopened. The non-admin closer, Captain Galaxy, should not have closed the discussion because they appear to have relatively little experience and because the closure was likely to be controversial. There is no basis in policy or procedure for the speedy "procedural closure" undertaken here. The argument that the discussion should be deferred because of an ongoing page move discussion is one that can be made in the RfD, as one other editor did, but it is no basis for a speedy closure. At any rate, the argument is mistaken: As the other editor in the RfD recognized, the move discussion appears almost certain to not end with the page being moved. There is therefore no reason to defer the RfD. Sandstein 13:03, 21 June 2020 (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. |
Non-admin closure of a bundled multitopic discussion, not a correct reading of the consensus: two people voted "delete/redirect all" while the other two voted "delete or redirect all except Double Live", so there was 100 per cent support for the others but a literal 50-50 split (i.e. a consensus failure) on Double Live in particular. That album has more and better sources than the others, which is why the split emerges: two people didn't take the sourceability difference into account at all, while the other two did. So this had to either be relisted for another week, or closed as "redirect all except Double Live", as there's clearly no consensus for treating that album the same as the rest of the bundle. However, as a participant in the discussion it would be improper for me to just revert the closure myself. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (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 sources in the article do not demonstrate notability, my source analysis was blatantly ignored, and most of the keep votes gave no actual reason for it. The keep votes include terrible reasoning such as "keep and we can decide if it's notable later", the article creator, and "it's an F1 event". There is no evidence that this is notable, so this should be overturned to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (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. |
Unfortunately, I didn't find time to further elaborate on my initial statement in XfD and the discussion was closed with minimum participation, so I decided to submit the article for review. The nominator claimed that this individual is "an actor but with no significant roles". It's true that he's not one of the award-winning actors in his native country, yet the two comedy movies that bear his name and in which he had the main role sold 17 million and 7 million liras according to Box Office Turkey. The other movie in which he had a supporting role sold 10 million liras. Another thing that the nominator mentioned was that he is "a YouTuber but with no evidence of significant coverage". That again is not true. He was the first Turkish YouTuber to hit 10 million subscribers in 2019 and was featured in YouTube Rewind 2019: For the Record. At the time the article was deleted, it had references to news and short bios published by major newspapers and news agencies in Turkey such as Milliyet, Habertürk, İhlas News Agency and CNN Türk. I could even further expand it using the text available on Turkish Wikipedia. The person seems pretty notable to me, that's why I wanted to see what the other users think. Keivan.fTalk
|
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. |
2 votes for keep > 1 vote for delete: the page in question is in fact useful to a wide range of audiences, and would be lost or clutter in the primary article on Java programming languages. If my use of this template/form isn't up to wikipedia standards, I apologize for being unfamiliar with these systems of abstraction. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.228.136 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2020 (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 closer noticed that there was an option to close it as a merge. It could have closed as a merge, but the user claimed it could've been discussed outside of AFD, which I have confusing, because AFD's closed with merging happen all the time. The consensus asked for a merge, but it was closed as keep. Koridas talk? 16:53, 17 June 2020 (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 created 17 September 2019 by puppet of User:Elfinshadow who has been banned since Feb 2019 for adverising/promo (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive. No significant contents contribution besides the creator. It was kept in the AfD whose consensus building process was disrupted by Dwaro; and an account that mysteriously came out of nearly a two year hibernation and went right back to hibernation as soon as the AfD was closed. A fair consensus was not achieved, because an input that should not have been taken into account was considered. Article should be deleted as an article created by banned user under a ban evading alternate account, because a SPI that identified a connection at a later time concludes the article was created while the ban was in effect. Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (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. |
Lana Rhoades is the #1 most popular/watched pornographic actress according to multiple sources. Several pornographic actors that are less notable than Rhoades have their own articles, so she should also have her own instead of being a redirect. Momo824 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
References
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. |
I am requesting the above deleted files to be restored. These were deleted by JJMC89 and their bot JJMC89 bot. I put this request on JJMC89's talk as the deleting user on June 8, but they have not been active since then so I'm hoping another user can help me restore these. I did put this request at WP:REFUND, but Hut 8.5 directed me to start a discussion here. For all of these files, JJMC89 stated in their reason to delete was
|
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 recent days, Jamaal Bowman has received prominent endorsements, e.g. by Senators Warren, Sanders, and national news coverage, e.g. in headlines by CBS, Politico, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, ABC. He is surely notable and relevant. Porridge (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few more international sources - I hope the formatting is ok this time:
Perhaps it would be helpful to see this not primarily as a US election issue, but as a question of what the international English-language wikipedia should cover? Porridge (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2020 (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 as A7, but claimed to have 11 million subscribers (the actual channel shows almost 12 million). According to WikiProject YouTube's statistics, cases like this are actually more often than not kept at AfD, and (assuming I'm interpreting this right), there seems to be a growing consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#YouTube_subscribers that cases like this should go to AfD (for the record, this subject also has many Google News hits). Adam9007 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2020 (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 AfD was closed on May 31st by administrator Sandstein with the comments "The result was redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary. Consensus to not keep. Unclear with respect to redirect, but the "delete" opinions do not seem to oppose one." Sandstein re-directed to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. (I personally was not part of that AfD discussion but think Sandstein made an appropriate decision for that moment in time.) Soon after Smith0124 re-started the article with the comments "It doesn’t seem that a consensus was reached on the discussion."[24] Several edits later the AfD nom Muboshgu re-directed the article for unknown reasons and with no comment.[25] On June 2nd Theresa Greenfield was elected the Democratic nominee in the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa and since then there has been significant national coverage about her, not just "mentions." Examples of the significant coverage of this person since the AfD close are from USA Today, The Hill and Vox.[26][27][28] (EDIT: Two of these additional significant coverages occurred after the last DRV closed. I didn't know about that DRV.) Due to the new significant coverage and now polls are showing Greenfield currently ahead in this race, I re-started the article, added the new significant coverage of this person and some content with the edit comments "Situation has changed dramatically since AfD closed with "Unclear with respect to redirect" outcome. Very significant national coverage about Greenfield has occurred after AfD. Some added to article."[29] I notified Sandstein.[30] But Muboshgu reverted again with the comment "AfD closed two weeks ago, and her winning the nomination is not a big enough change".[31] Muboshgu has now protected the page with the comment "Repeatedly recreated despite redirect result at AfD".[32] Not only has this person become the US Senate race Democratic nominee since the AfD close, but has received new significant coverage by multiple national outlets about her and is now ahead in the polls and has easily become notable by WP standards. I think the AfD occurring just before the primary election was ill-advised and now that the stature of this person has change significantly the article needs to be re-created.Oakshade (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Didn't know about the previous DRV. At the time of this post, two of the above (USA Today and The Hill coverage) and the below significant coverage (the Des Moines Register) of this person occurred after the last DRV. Also there is more Politico significant coverage about this person that wasn't even mentioned in the AfD or previous DRV.[33] The coverage will only continue to grow and if this page doesn't get re-created, there will be yet another DRV by yet a different editor and likely soon. Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (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 as WP:SYNTH. I feel this page was held to an unnecessarily and unduly strict interpretation of WP:Notability. I feel that retaining this entry is based upon the the same criteria for validity and WP:Notability as any other year-based article; e.g. we have 2019 in film, 2019 in science, 2019 in art, 2019 in aviation, etc. the only difference between Protests of 2019 and the other articles, is that Protests of 2019 is formatted in a narrative format, whereas the other year-based articles are formatted in purely a chronological, timeline-based format. I feel that this article is well-researched, is notable, and easily meets the standards of WP:Notable, as well as other aspects of five pillars of Wikipedia. I should also note that there was a significant number of votes in favor of "Keep" for this article. I feel this article should be retained here. Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Usually I do not expand on my reasoning if a user chooses to bypass discussion and, per my unusual practise I am not offering my opinion on the close but there was 1 further consideration that I did not mention in my close that informed my close. That is, there appears to have been some vote stacking on the keep side. Not just the policy free votes but a cluster of keeps including 3 accounts that were inactive but came together to vote keep in roughly the same time. This includes 1 account whose only edit i 3 years was to keep this article. Spartaz Humbug! 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a joke. No response was given to my comment that these sources all considered this a unified phenomenon: Clearly this is not original synthesis originating in Wikipedia. Shall we also delete Protests of 1968, since there seems to be little similarity in the protest demands there? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, there are 10 votes to keep and only six for delete. How is that consensus to delete? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If I may, I would like to respond to some of the points above. firstly, I am glad to hear this robust discussion taking place here. this open interchange is what Wikipedia is all about, and what enriches us as a community. ok, as far as my own personal editing philosophy, this is hardly due to some knee-jerk philosophy of inclusionism on my part. as noted above, I have a consistent, ongoing interest in strengthening the ways that we as a community can cover contemporary history in a meaningful way. I commend the contributors to this article, for providing a useful overview of the era that we are currently in. By the way, one suggestion that I might make is that perhaps we might re-approach this topic, perhaps by creating an article that might take the full decade as its scope, rather than a single year. however, I do perceive a confluence of causes that produced the wave of protests that we are currently experiencing. and by the way, IMO the correct years to hold up as comparison for levels of protest are not 2014 or 2015, as one commenter did at the AFD. it is a legitimate assertion, but I feel that it misses the mark. any year that is subsequent to the invasion of Iraq of 2003, and more importantly the Arab Spring of 2011, and the resulting worldwide upheaval and instability, will reflect a similar uptick in protests. I feel the proper comparison would be the years of the late 1990s, during which time there was indeed less worldwide protests and less political upheaval and ferment. Based on that, I still feel that this article should be retained. However, of course I will defer to the community discussion on this topics, and to any valid consensus reached. I would welcome any comments, feedback, or constructive input on any of my points above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Hello. Why was GILDA PIANELLI erased or deleted? I didn't do it and its a page that has been on Wikipedia for YEARS...please advise. I don't know who did it.
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Two editors in favor of deletion and one in favor of keeping. Buidhe co-signed my rationale that the given sources do not establish notability (i.e. churnalism does not meet the bar of significant coverage) and Atlantic306 asserted that they do. I provided additional evidence of churnalism at User talk:Spartaz/Archive24#More info on decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards but the essence of the argument is all there in the AFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2020 (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 think the closing should have been to re-list or no consensus.
|
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. |
hice las correciones neccesarios para mejorla. Tengo citas con publicaciones con credibilidad, El nuevo herald, entrevistas con la artista, y en el NY times. La pagina necesita ayuda no merece eliminacion. La pagina esta en un estado de construcion. Necesita esperar que colabora mas gente. There is a corresponding page in english that is being worked and developed. Corazon de Gardenias (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2020 (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 AfD was closed, with a decision to Delete, by eminent admin Spartaz who invoked the part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that states "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." However, the subject of the deleted article is most certainly a public figure, having being a member of the Ronald Reagan cabinet as Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was also far from unknown during his tenure and beyond, as the many sources extant in the article and presented during the AfD show. This merits a second look. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
References
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
To the extent editors also discuss the U5 speedy deletion of the userspace draft at User:Rootview/sandbox, they support its restoration. To that end, I provide the deleted text by Rootview in its entirety here:
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Also User:Rootview/sandbox. I have looked up the deletion thread and found that it merits a challenge, contest and hopefully the reinstating of either my entry or the one from 2015 of which I only have a recollection of and would like a copy of it. Please direct me to the right place to get it. I copied and pasted the bit about the base to which the original article got deleted: • "Seems like a pretty obvious Keep. ...Just kidding. Delete - so non-notable that I don't even know the movies. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk)(contributions) 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rona De Ricci. 1. The previous bit records editor Wgolf (see link) to either mock or question: “Actress who has an amazing 2 roles and has not been in anything since”. This seems to be the base to his imitative to delete the article (2015). I challenge the implication that imposes a continuous (future) work as criteria to value previous work. I could list people that have produced one public work and stopped (reasons abound), and yet their mention is justified, including in Wikipedia. However, I will pick one to simplify the example: author J.D. Salinger. The editor, New Age Retro Hippie, assumes that if he (even!) doesn’t know the movie than it’s non-notable. How closed minded and ignorant. Will information and knowledge be limited to whether one person knows of a certain fact, opinion, concept etc. to be open to all or not? 2. Her performances in those films produced an interest and positive reviews, notably an article about her and another actress, which was included as a reference in both the original article (not mine) in 2015 and mine. Please see the entries. 3. Finally, I would like to ask this: if both films merited a Wikipedia entry and are built on the cast's work, why the actor doesn't merit an entry? Why the actress in the female starring role doesn't? After all, she is what made that film (along with the other actors, etc.) 'notable". How come the parts don't make up the sum? I uploaded a JPG image of the actress along with the entry yesterday (June 8th, 2020). I have the copyright, and it is of professional quality. The entry by itself is short and simple (as recommended) and consists only of information. Thanks for your consideration, Rootview Rootview (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (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 no doing advertising or violates any copyrights, i'm just trying to write the article for the company. 1 Pavilion (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2020 (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 a page for LBGT queer activist from india and as a part of pride month we need more visibility of their work. i belive the notability should match, please do check and if notablity is in place, kindly remove the lock and allow article creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmayya (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (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. |
Does not make sense to me that we can't have this user cat, but still have Template:User lazy and Template:User count. Going by the logic used in previous CFD, surely almost every subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy should be deleted, as being "Not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose". Whilst this is a tempting POINT to make, it also seems (to me at least) a very stupid one. WT79 (Speak to me | account info) 16:52, 9 June 2020 (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 anchors talking on it on india/pakistan news. i want to add content Kabristan1 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2020 (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 deleted as attack page by Bishonen with whom I had discussion about the deletion. Bishonen admitted having missed the fact that this article went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan where it was almost WP:SNOW Keep, but has refused to restore the article claiming that it had been edited by a number of socks but AFAIK this article involved enough contributions by editors who weren't blocked for sockpuppetry any recently. Tessaracter (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (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. |
Requesting review per comments on my talk page. Some editors have asserted that the topic might actually meet WP:LISTPEOPLE. I am not so sure what the correct interpretation is of that guidance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (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 WooPlus page was deleted with a speedy deletion, because it was largely the same as the previous page that got deleted after an AfD. I think that the users in the discussion did not correctly consider the WP:GNG guideline. The page I created contained multiple independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. Throwawiki (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2020 (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. |
Improper close as Speedy Keep without a Speedy Keep rationale, request AFD to run for seven days Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Improper speedy keep close. Requesting Overturn of Speedy Keep, to allow AFD to run for seven days. Close was by non-administrator who had demonstrated in advance that they had a view, and therefore were entitled to !vote but were involved and should not have closed. See this post on my talk page before I nominated the article in question for AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=960867031&oldid=960618059&diffmode=source Please see Tropical cyclones in 2004, Tropical cyclones in 2010, Tropical cyclones in 2012, Tropical cyclones in 2014. The article you declined is EXACTLY THE SAME. 🐔 Chicdat There is an ongoing content dispute about what levels of detail to have articles about tropical cyclones at. I had declined Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011. Tropical cyclones are covered by basin and year (e.g., Atlantic hurricanes in 2019), by individual storm if notable, and in an overall article covering a period of centuries. The response to my decline was the post to my talk page. I left alone the year articles that were complete, but tagged the subject article for a deletion discussion. As stated, request that the Speedy Keep be overturned and the AFD allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2020 (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 article was originally deleted on the grounds that is did not meet WP:NFOOTY since the player had not made his competitive debut. However, this has now changed since he played for De Graafschap in a KNVB Cup match against Vitesse, therefore satisfying WP:NFOOTY as he has appeared in a competitive match between two teams form fully professional leagues. Therefore, Dylan Chiazor is now considered notable and the article should be restored. SFletcher06 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (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. |
Like with Dylan Chiazor, it was deleted on the grounds that it failed WP:NFOOTY. This article now meets WP:NFOOTY since he has made an Eerste Divisie appearance for De Graafschap, and the Eerste Divisie is a fully professional league, meaning the article now meets the notability guidelines. [38] SFletcher06 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (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. |
Brandnewz (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC) The 2nd deletion happened on similar reasons as 1st soft deletion - one argument was that the article “appears to be mainly WP:PROMO and does not seem to meet WP:GNG, because it doesn't look like there are multiple references that are independent, significant, reliable and secondary at the same time”. Facts why this should be reconsidered: For the purposes of this article, the definition of “independent, significant, reliable and secondary references” tends, in my opinion, to be subjectively determined – because although there is a lack of serious, high-profile news agencies and scientific publications in the crypto-currency space (since the crypto-currency market is still relatively young) you can conclude after some research that there is a very high demand in crypto and putting all crypto related articles in relation to each other, you will find that specialized news agencies dominate the majority of coverage of industry-specific news. As mentioned by “mphorigin” this does not necessarily imply a reporting that does not adhere to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All outlets reporting are independent and Bitcoin Suisse received significant coverage over the years in news outlets such as Bloomberg, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Bilanz, Finanz und Wirtschaft, Forbes, etc.. (public) which in my opinion are high-profile news agencies. “Article can be kept if notability can be proved, but at this point I'm not convinced.” – some examples here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-29/swiss-ski-resort-zermatt-now-accepts-bitcoin-to-pay-taxes https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2020/01/17/the-bull-case-for-bitcoin-in-2020/#78c226f93878 Regarding the argument, that there are many WP:SPA accounts. As stated on the respective page, the risk here is that these users’ goals are to promote the company. Open to discuss on promotionally written parts if those can be outlined – however, if the content is written objectively and “a straightforward, just-the-facts style” (Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia), this should not keep the community from accepting it. Everyone is free to decide which article(s) they can contribute to according to Wikipedia. On argument "WP:ROUTINE": I see that point, should be adjusted. On the argument "The article's been here years; it's an eternal WP:TOOSOON" : the company exists since almost 7 years, (confirmed by the Swiss commercial register). Bitcoin Suisse belongs to the biggest companies (by employees & revenue) of the canton of Zug. Further, it belongs to the first companies of the so called "Crypto Valley" (which is also explained on the wiki page "Zug"). It shapes the national political debate on distributed ledger technologies as part of the former working group of the Federal Council, and founding member of the Swiss Blockchain Federation. This is publicly known - and therefore I consider Bitcoin Suisse as of high public interest. Brandnewz (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (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. |
Note: I participated in the AfD, in which I supported keeping the article. My username was User:CJK09 at the time before a very recent username change. Closed as "delete" with no rationale provided by closer. Vote count: 7 keep, 4 merge, 7 delete (incl. nom), 1 "delete or merge" --> 7 keep, 4.5 merge, 7.5 delete. Keeping in mind that "merge" is not a form of "delete", since the history and much of the content is preserved, such a tally would normally indicate a "no consensus" closure unless the arguments for one of the outcomes are sufficiently strong. Now, looking more closely at the discussion, 6 of the delete rationales (incl. nom) are based on notability either in full or in part. Only two of these 6 provide rationales for this. The first is the nominator (Tessaracter), who says that The first three keep rationales (disclosure: including mine) point out various examples of international coverage of the phenomenon as a whole from highly esteemed reliable sources. Because the phenomenon as a whole is notable, it doesn't matter whether the individual incidents are notable, since notability of a list is based on the list topic as a whole, not on the individual list entries. Thus the nominator's invocation of LISTN is not correct. The nominator and a few of the delete and merge rationales cite either or both of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my keep rationale I provided detailed reasoning of why neither of those applied to the article. Aside from one assertion without explanation in response to my reasoning, none of these provided reasoning for why these parts of WP:NOT apply to the article. For a discussion with this vote tally to be closed as delete, it has to be clear that the rationales for deletion are stronger than the rationales for keeping. I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion from looking at this AfD discussion. For me there two reasonable interpretations, generously speaking: (1) the keep rationales are stronger than the delete rationales, in which case the discussion should have been closed as keep; and (2) the keep and delete rationales are equally strong, in which case the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. CactusJack (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Courtesy pings: @Tesseracter, Drat8sub, Toughpigs, Yoonadue, Aman.kumar.goel, Desmay, Vanamonde93, Azuredivay, Capankajsmilyo, Hatchens, Yogesh Khandke, Rsrikanth05, D4iNa4, M4DU7, Superastig, Zindagi713, Accesscrawl, and Adondai: CactusJack (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2020 (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 article, which consisted of a very short BLP violation, was speedily deleted. I then created the Derek Chauvin article, which was much better written and sourced. However, it was reverted to a redirect and hard protected. I want to suggest the reinstation of the content version linked to above. Let me discuss the rationale for speedily deleting the article here, in light of the event:
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. |
With all due respect, the closer gave no overview of the discussion and people were split on whether to delete, redirect, or keep. The decision to redirect was premature. Smith0124 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2020 (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 a non-admin closure. I do not believe the closer interpreted the WP:NOCONSENSUS correctly, additionally it was relisted May 29 and the editor closed it 3 days into the relist after 3 straight keep !votes. User:Buidhe closed it as a redirect which is a De facto delete. I did ask the editor to reopen this MfD on their talk page. I am asking that this result be overturned and/or we allow an experienced administrator to close this. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |