|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I think J947 brought up a valid point, especially given that the the acronym being thrown around as if it were policy is really just an essay. Rosguill relisted the discussion, but it was closed as delete the next day by Ivanvector, without any participation since the relist. As deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, I think the relist was perfectly valid, to stimulate more discussion, and the closure should be repealed. Numbers don't mean everything, especially all the "delete" !votes are basically just "per nom" or "per that essay". Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2023 (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 would like to provide to some information that was not part of the deletion discussion. I have to point that there are category pages for the British Academy Game Awards winners at Category:BAFTA winners (video games). In my opinion, the D.I.C.E. Awards are more defining than the British Academy Game Awards. There are also categories for Category:Game Developers Choice Award winners, Category:Golden Joystick Award winners, and even Category:New York Game Award winners. There also category GOTY winner categories for the Game Developers Choice Awards and Golden Joystick Awards. I feel that at the very least the Category:D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year winners MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2023 (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 an invalid WP:G14, per
|
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 an invalid WP:G14, per
|
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 an invalid WP:G14, per
|
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 an invalid WP:G14, per
|
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. |
As stated on User talk:Doczilla, I personally find the deletion close to be a somewhat incorrect interpretation of the consensus in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as no-consensus, however, from my (definitely biased POV) the Keep voters were fairly new accounts that failed to actually show any reliable significant sourcing that would lead the page to be kept and instead reffered to various policies (sometimes completely errenously) without actually pointing out how the page actually satisfied the said policies. Sohom (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (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. |
"SanFranBan" is a term for a WMF global ban (see e.g. 1, 2; c.f. WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?), and its existence aligns with the general principle that one should be able to find the definition of Wikipedia jargon term by going to WP:[insert term here].Note that because of the age of the deletion discussion (it is eight years and one WP:FRAMBAN later), I had initially filed this at REFUND, but Graeme Bartlett said it would be better to take it to DRV. HouseBlastertalk 07:54, 26 November 2023 (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. |
More reliable sources have covered Ogolobyak [1] [2]. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (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 a valid R3, as - while inaccurate - this title isn't implausible, which WP:R3 requires. Early reports described this as a car bomb (example) and it was initially treated as a possible terrorism attack (example). As Thryduulf said at the aborted RFD, the way to combat sloppy reporting is education, not to pretend it didn't happen. —Cryptic 11:20, 23 November 2023 (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. |
Insufficient conversation took place about the possibility of redirecting the article with history to a band member. The discussion was relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2023 (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 is a extremely obscure set of economic theories which isn't terribly useful to have as a separate article. The article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's page. The issue with the earlier review is that it is inconclusive due to the idea that this theory was being used or implemented, however this is not the case. It's a obscure theory from over 50 years ago with and hasn't been used since. Perhaps, at most it's a social movement started by Sarkar, all the more reason to have it be on his page. Similar to social credit, but as far as I can tell unlike social credit no government aligned with this movement has been in power which brings into question it's notability. This is a theory that isn't used either in economics or in any polity. This article isn't notable enough to have its own page and needs to be reviewed. Imitationsasquatch (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2023 (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. It should be No Consensus close unless the closing admin cast a super vote. Tetrainn (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2023 (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 was properly deleted on 12 December 2017, based on a consensus that the subject was "marginally notable" at the time and, pivotally, based on the subject having requested deletion of the article himself. While this outcome was clearly correct at the time, circumstances have changed substantially in the intervening 5+ years. I therefore request restoration of so that I can move it to draftspace to develop the article in light of substantial post-deletion sources. As a procedural note, I previously undeleted this article to draft and then restored it to mainspace, but re-deleted it upon request pursuant to an objection based on circumstances outlined below. I formally proposed undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and was directed here.
In conclusion, I believe the combination of developments illustrated by continuing citation to the subject's academic work, and continuing nonacademic coverage, is at least sufficient to support having a draft on the subject in draftspace, to be submitted for consideration through the usual WP:AFC process, irrespective of the subject's own preferences. BD2412 T 22:38, 18 November 2023 (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 Afd was closed as non-consensus this morning when it should have either been a redirect or a delete. The editor who created this, creates high promotional articles and more than 60% have been deleted with several still at Afd, a new one sent to draft this morning. The editor was taken to WP:COI, an independent review of the articles was completed, and as an uninvolved editor I sent the ones which were dodgy to Afd. I conducted a source analysis review which found no secondary soruces. They were all PR, press-release and interviews. The editor did a Heymann, and those sources were checked and were equally as bad. Another uninvolved editor found equally as bad. Another drive-by editor stated it was a keep without offering any evidence it was notable. Another keep was attempted with several references, but these were found to be interviews and more PR with same images found in the articles. The closing admin has asserted that I stated the Miami Herald is clickbait, which is patently false. The admin also seem to be positing that primary sources are ok to establish notability and many primary sources are somehow ok. It should have been a redirect. The reference are terrible for mainstream BLP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 November 2023 (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. |
Should not have been G5’d because (1) the talk page had administrators reply and he can’t delete his comments because he didn’t like the subject, (2) he was WP:INVOLVED and (3) that block was made on little evidence as it was. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2023 (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. |
Most Respected Sir Namaskar Palak Tiwari is a famous Indian actress, you can know about her at your level. She is the daughter of Bollywood film actress Shweta Tiwari. Apart from this, she is active in Indian films. I feel that her page should not be removed. If you feel that there is a need to improve the page, then you will be greatly appreciated if you help me in improving it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaftCinematic (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (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've been experiencing some level of subjectivity in the decisions by reviewers, which makes it hard to pinpoint what exactly prevents this article from meeting Wikipedia standards. Kindly requesting undeletion to be able to rewrite it.
I believe I'm able to completely rewrite it in a neutral tone and meet Wikipedia standards if given an opportunity to continue working on the article. This person meets the notability requirements, based on the existence of media coverage of her life and work that is independent of the subject. Faminalizblr (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2023 (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. |
As a student of International Relations researching the Uzbek NATO relations, I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Wikipedia article I visited recently about Saydulla Abdukuddusovich Madaminov had been deleted. I was even more surprised to read the discussion of deletion, in which Madaminov was said to be "insignificant." The article on Saydulla Abdukuddusovich Madaminov, a retired Uzbek colonel and former Commander of the Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces, was recently deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that it is not notable. However, I believe that this article is indeed notable and should be restored. Here are some of the reasons why:
In addition to these facts, the article on Madaminov is also well-written and informative. It provides a comprehensive overview of his life and career, and it includes citations to reliable sources. I urge the Wikipedia community to restore the article on Saydulla Abdukuddusovich Madaminov. He is a notable figure who has made significant contributions to the Uzbek military and to civil aviation. His story is worth sharing with the world. PetrovMD (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
1. Addressing Notability with Limited Sources: The Central Asian region, particularly in the field of journalism, is less developed regarding online resources. This scarcity impacts the availability of online sources, a crucial aspect of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hence, while the available sources may be fewer than typically expected, they are significant within the regional context and should be weighed accordingly. 2. Enhanced Source List: To address the previous concerns regarding the quality of sources, Here is a list of sources that demonstrate the subject's notable contributions and roles. [43] [44] [45] [46] 3. Addressing Paid Editing Concerns: While there were suspicions of paid editing, I assure you that my contributions are in good faith, aimed at enriching Wikipedia's content with factual and notable information. My interest in this article is purely based on the historical and military significance of the subject. I urge the community members to restore this article, at least in the form of an AfC. Thank you for reconsidering this matter.PetrovMD (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2023 (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. |
that editor is from Mississippi and is therefore biased in his delete. I need more time to make the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.104.139.34 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2023 (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. |
Please can you restore the page that was speedily deleted as this was a new page with new sources . It was speedily deleted without a discussion 86.98.142.14 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2023 (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 large number of the sources are self-published, either by the subject of the article themself, a political they are or were a member of or a trade union she was an official in. A large number are passing quotes where her name is mentioned in passing or she is quoted in passing. Some are lists of candidates at an election and a list of her political party amongst many others. Additionally, as a large number of sources are offline sources they cannot be checked by the average reader While this is not disqualifying this issue is addressed by by User:Alpha3031 here. They asked
This was not replied to in the discussion meaning that it has to be taken without further explanation from the person adding them as they are behind a complex registration wall as such they cannot be assessed or counted for or against the coverage of the article subject. I will now go through the sources in turn and why they do not meet SIGCOV or pass GNG. This is as of this revision of the article (the version as at the time of filing this review and the same as at time of closure of the AfD).
As such references 19 and 31 pass reliable independent and about the article's subject, the rest though do not pass or cannot be assessed for if they pass or not. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
09:17, 9 November 2023 (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. |
Please could you restore the page as it was a soft delete and new Arabic resources have emerged establishing notability. 2406:8800:9014:FA42:A02A:300A:7CE6:23B0 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2023 (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 essentially WP:BLP1E article. The Afd focused on using the same kind of kind of references that were repeating information from affliate news as a quantity over quality argument but no actual substance beyond the initial event. Lastly, some reason it was decided a non-admin should close which I found odd scope_creepTalk 12:49, 6 November 2023 (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. |
Closer neglected to look at & analyse any oth the sources from "The New London Day", there are many articles about this school in "The Day", and should have been analsised. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2023 (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: User:Parbon attempted to create this DRV but messed up the syntax. I have fixed it; I was also the deleting admin so I do not need to be notified. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) The article was created by me in 2023 and was proposed for deletion within weeks on the ground that the article fails the WP:PROF or WP:GNG. It was deleted after discussion. I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikipedia article titled "Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)" which was recently deleted. I believe the article has the potential to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:PROF and WP:GNG) with the right improvements. I have carefully reviewed the article and made necessary changes to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines. I have added additional reliable sources and citations to establish the notability of Zakir Hossain Raju, addressing the concerns that led to the deletion. I kindly request that you review the updated draft and consider its reinstatement. The article now conforms to Wikipedia's standards and provides valuable information about an accomplished individual in academia and filmmaking. If there are any specific guidelines or criteria that I should address further, please let me know, and I will make the necessary revisions promptly. Thank you for your time and consideration. User:Parbon. — Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 4 November 2023 (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 created by somebody in 2020 and was proposed for deletion within weeks on the ground that the article fails the WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E criteria and was deleted after discussion. It seems not very unfair to delete the page at that point since he was just another IPS officer leaving service and joining a political party. Though it is very much evident that, he is more notable and not like every other hundreds of IPS officers as he was different and was famous. He recieves unusual media coverage atleast locally. But that doesn’t qualify enough to pass the WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E criterias. Also the article presented then was more in a promotion tone. There was also a title conflict since there is another person with the name K.Annamalai. The nominator of the AFD himself “suggest to delete the article for now and wait till anything develops reason being wikipedia is not a soapbox and biographical host for every person” Consensus reached to delete the article ‘atleast temporarily’. BUT, things had changed substatially over time. He was appointed as the state vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party and was promoted as the State President a year later. From day 1 in his office until now, he is been in the headlines of leading, reputed Tamil and English, newspapers and electronic media in Tamil Nadu 24x7x365. He even reaches national headlines frequently. It could be verified online here [47][48][49][50][51] Tamil, Malayalam,hindi and Kannada Wikipedias already has artilce on him and the traffic for the page in Tamil wikipedia gets 5 to 7 times the views on an average when compared to the article on the previous president L. Murugan, even though he is a union minister. I am elobrating all these things just to reflect upon his increased notability over time. Now the WP:NPOL criteria is met and he does not fit into the WP:BLP1E category. Even though the name space Annamalai.K is been already created for a former ‘1-time-MLA’ who was elected in 2001 and was very little notable comparably. Yet he was argued to be an elected representative. Apart from that he was nowhere near to ‘Annamalai Kuppusamy’ (whom we are discussing about) in the notability scale. (This is another discussion) For the argument that the tone of the then article is promotional, I have a different version which shall be uploaded (again it shall be discussed). For the citations – There are already tens of hundreds of news articles available on him. We will be able to add fare references from reputed sources readily. So it is very much unfair not to have a page in English Wikipedia on him now. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:06, 2 November 2023 (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 previous deletion review recommended allowing recreation; however, I'm requesting restoration of the original article. There is a draft pending at Draft:Miles Routledge, and I'd like to have the original article back with its old edit history so that the draft at AfC can be combined into it. Dan Leonard (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |