|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Since deletion, subject has been interviewed by Daily Show, had a piece exclusively on him by ABC News, and has had about a dozen columns syndicated wildly on various papers and journals. His prominence continues to grow, even all the sysops here know him. Jcunha2 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The Talend page was speedily deleted by Nishkid64 for CSD#A7 reason, putting forward that Talend.com ranks badly on Alexa traffic ranking website. However, imho, I don't think Alexa traffic ranking is a valid representative of global internet usage. Fair enough, Talend is new on wikipedia and a pretty young player in the BI and ETL industry, but Talend is present and active on known resources websites such as SourceForge.netor on FreshMeat. Moreover after a year of existence, Talend is already the Technology partner of JasperSoftas the ETL OEM solution embedded in the JBIS suite, a Gold partner of MySQL, the ETL brick of the SpagoBIstack and has been approached by numerous Open Source as well as Proprietary software companies to setup integration and technological partnerships. Eventually Talend is co-founder with a large number of global Open Source keyplayers of the OSA and was invited to join the ObjectWeb consortium - OW2. I hope this information will let you think that Talend is "notable" enough to overturn the Talend article deletion decision. Elisa-Talend 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Person is a notable musician. Content does not infringe copyright. Hence no reason for deletion. Elaborations on how he meets wikipedia criteria for posting articles on musicians have previously been stated but were since lost when article was deleted without notice. Please restore those points if possible.Lmao123 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Factually correct and follows the same format as many other indie studios 69.237.201.118 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It was deleted on the grounds of "notability" less than a month ago and yet *is* notable. It has 2.58 million Google hits (Pligg doesn't seem to be the name of anything else - every of the top 20 results is for the software). Nominator gave the following reason for deletion: "This article has no external references. Unable to find a single news article or mention of the site in reputable source". Firstly, we shouldn't be fixing a lack of references by deleting the article. Secondly, why would *news* establish whether software is "notable" or not? "MediaWiki" only gets 27 news hits at Google News. One of those who voted "delete" claimed "seems to fail WP:WEB". Problem: you can't fail a guideline (you can only not fulfil it). The fact that such an article can be deleted strikes me as a failure of our deletion mechanisms. Essentially, an article that is bound to get plenty of readers has been deleted based upon an out-of-touch and overformalised sense of notability. Oldak Quill 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Organization. This page was deleted because the Administrators did not believe the AJA is a notable Organization. However, the AJA is a very active and committed organization, that while new to the web has been working to promote ethics on a Statewide level for many years. It has recently begun to be more active online and as such wishes to include information about it's organization here in Wikipedia. While the administrators who deleted this article may not be aware of the AJA, it is well known in the jewelry industry and well regarded. The AJA holds a conference every year with speakers from around the U.S. attending to speak on every topic from Jade and Platinum to the Kimberley Process. Past speakers have included the primary authors of the Kimberley Process, and leading world experts on various minerals and jewelry processes. I will admit that the article needed to be updated, but instead of deleting it out-right with no notification to the primary author of the article Saint Gulik, it would've been nice to know that the article was being considered for deletion. 71.223.143.86 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Accidental Centaurs is a webcomic created and drawn by John Lotshaw that debuted on January 15, 2002. Sandstein closed AfD#1 on 14 December 2006, stating that the outcome of the deletion debate was delete. On 19 December 2006, King of Hearts speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs and redirected it to deleted page "The Accidental Centaurs."[1] On 12 March 2007 BradBeattie speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs writing, "Redeleting previously AFD'd article."[2] Dread Lord CyberSkull now seeks review of the delete outcome of the 14 December 2006 AfD, reasoning that "this page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an AFD before, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work." (Summary provided by Jreferee 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Escalalting use of the phrase in UK business 4five 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A number of related articles are being repeatedly nominated for deletion for inappropriate reasons. Although I agree with some of the deletions, this topic needs to be covered in some form or other. Salting is entirely inappropriate. At least one or two of the articles need to be re-created, though I'm not sure which or in which format. This is not a request to undelete all of these articles. It is a request to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Reviewing several articles at once. I've just gone through all the various AfDs, and all of the reasons cited for deletion fall under one of the following:
I'm currently leaning towards a Brown's gas article and an HHO gas article, since they are promoted by different people and claimed to be unique substances. The Ruggero Santilli article was kept, so the magnecule stuff can go in his own article. Stuff about conventional electrolysis→oxyhydrogen welding goes in Oxy-fuel welding and cutting#Hydrogen.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was speedy-deleted for lack of notability. I believe it should be undeleted, as subject meets Wikipedia's notability criterion. Dead Oceans is a new record label that is a sister label of two well-established indie record labels: Jagjaguwar and Secretly Canadian. The initial roster of Dead Oceans includes Bishop Allen, an important, previously unsigned band that has a Wikipedia entry. Its creation is a significant event in the musical world. More importantly, although Dead Oceans is new, it meets Wikipedia's notability criterion as a number of significant, independent sources have already written about it, including Pitchfork Media and Austin 360. I'm afraid that, as something of a newbie, I failed to include links to these independent sources in my initial version of the entry, which I suspect is why DragonflySixtyseven performed a speedy deletion for reasons of notability. However, I am convinced that adding these independent, published sources to my entry would make Dead Oceans an entirely appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Please consider undeleting it. It should go without saying that I have no personal connection whatsoever to this record label. BenA 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page flagged for speedy deletion due to reposted content. Content was written fresh from scratch (my first submission ever here). Admin deleted page due to reason "waving magic crystals". I do not believe a new article should be speedily deleted in this instance. See talk:Luigi30 for discussion engaged. First attempt to dialog was simply deleted from talk page. Trane Francks 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Significant noticed total nonsense in my opinion, but that isn't a factor. DGG 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrote the entire article from anew. Prolite 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
overturn self, will relist on CFD today. >Radiant< 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a pre-emptive strike, because I think whatever User:Radiant did in this category discussion might've ended up here. To be clear, I agree with Radiant that "Listify and delete" was the right solution to a complex problem. I voted Keep all, though, because the system had just been put into place after a series of very contentious arguments, and I wanted to see if the problem he theorized would actually develop. What Radiant did that I object to was introduce a solution that had not been discussed during the debate. I think the right answer here was for Radiant to introduce his solution and relist the debate. Because right now it looks like 17 Keep alls, 9 votes for deletion, and 1 vote for listifying, which is what won. I'd like to see if people agree with that direction.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Redversunilaterally deleted a sourced article based on a Fudokan kata Kaminari. If this page is deleted i shoud deleted the page Fudokan, Taiji Shodan, Heian Oi-Kumi. That page is important karate kata. I continue to be troubled by the increasing numbers of unilateral deletions like this. UNDELETE_REASON Snake bgd 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:ChrisGriswold unilaterally deleted a sourced article based on a Comedy Central poll. By this logic, we need to delete lists like List of billionaires (2007) and Pop 100 number-one hits of 2005 (USA) unilaterally without any kind of AfD. I continue to be troubled by the increasing numbers of unilateral deletions like this. Jokestress 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I created an entirely NEW page [9], which yesterday's aguments do not apply (IMHO), in deleting it so FAST... How can one see the difference? The ones arguing for redirect or even rushing to delete... (most probably) did not see my edited vesion, which is 1) Not just an interview, 2) facts presented, 3) encylopedic terminology. 4) It is not about "race". 5) A rational person, a moderate Muslim would NOT regard exposing radicals as an "attack on all Islam". ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Or did the Guardian invented the Steve Centanni story as a "novel"? Shall I guess, the editor did not see the sources? [10]FoxNews on Al Qaeda's ultimatum to US[11]BBC on the Mandaeans 'face extinction' [12]NewsMax in general On the Steve Centanni 'forced to convert at gunpoint' by: [13]The Guardian [14] IHT And even: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=August_2006 Why be one be so obscure in pushing to delete such important cases, current events & a goal by Jihad? ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article Warriors (book series) herbs has been unfairly deleted. That article was very helpful and interesting. It told all the herbs and medicinal substances in the Warriors books and the uses for them. It was deleted due to it being "not encyclopedic" and because "most of these uses aren't specific to Warriors." Well, I can see where the person was coming from, but it was nice to have the information compiled in one area about the herbs used in Warriors. It was also very interesting to just look at the list. I am an avid reader of Warriors and I was highly disappointed when I discovered that this article had been deleted. I definitely think you should undelete it. Please consider my reasoning and undelete this interesting and useful article. Thank you. --Roseminty 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I suppose I just don't get why the sudden rampage to delete the pages for American Idol contestants. Considering how many thousands try out for the show and the incredibly high ratings, anyone who actually makes it to the final 12 is a recognizable figure to many and has accomplished something few others have. Plus, I anticipate others just recreating these pages eventually anyway. Finally, because of American Idol video games that include videos of contestants and programs like American Idol Rewind that re-air footage from past seasons with new interviews, the publicity of these individuals has been augmented all the more. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This category was CFDed and closed as "no consensus." This was one of 15 similar categories nominated at the same time and this was the only one not deleted. I renominated it and was advised to bring it here instead. So, since I think this was an aberration in the face of the other 14 deletions the CFD should be reopened/relisted for further comment to generate a fuller consensus. Otto4711 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Almost every player who has appeared on GSN's High Stakes Poker has an article written about him or her. Sometimes, as in the case of Dr. Amir Nasseri and Fred Chamanara, this is all the article states. Brian Townsend appeared in several episodes of the 3rd season of this show. On top of this, he plays poker at the highest stakes online, and is successful. No one questions the notability of a poker player who wins a big tournament. But there are some players who choose not to participate in these tournaments but opt instead to play high stakes cash games online or in a casino. They are no less successful or notable than the tournament winners. Bunzobunzo 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion has gotten too long to transclude. Experienced, logged-in editors may opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia. New edtiors and IP editors may comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia. |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It shows skills that could be useful to new chess players — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.75.73 (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrongly closed with no consensus to delete. Five !votes to delete, two !votes to keep and two !votes to rename to address the concerns of the nominator does not a consensus make, especially when the reasons to delete are, frankly, absurd and unfounded and the category was included in a mass nomination of the entire superhuman powers category tree here which looks to be heading to a "no consensus" closure. Otto4711 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Archived Talk subpage originally moved from Talk:Missingno.. Out-of-process deletion (no speedy criteria applies). --Stratadrake 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Useful and neccessary category for articles related to the economy of mainland China (more commonly known simply as "China"). "Mainland China" is the official terminology to refer to the People's Republic of China excluding Hong Kong and Macau, which remain separate economies. There are topics related and relevant to mainland China. This category was voted to be kept in June 2005, but was emptied some time before the March 2006 CfD. It was deleted when a user "ignored all rules" and decided not to follow CfD procedures. - Privacy 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Band on major record label (Atlantic/Warner) Having not seen the original article I do not know what the content was. The band Fields are less than a year old but have been on two MTV sponsored UK tours, toured supporting Bloc Party and are doing their own headline tour [19] in April. They have had numerous articles in the UK music Press (including NME [20] and [21] & The Fly) and online with sites such as Drowned in Sound [22], the album is still being recorded and produced by Michael Beinhorn as far as I know and is out 2nd April [23] with a preceding single [24] on 26th March. To be honest the arguments for non deletion in the article summary were vague at best and did not cite sources so were unconvincing, but they do meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC for bands as they have printed interviews, adverts, tour dates, single reviews etc. in many UK magazines as linked above. Nli10 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a farm & house that is listed on the national registry of historic places, and is a Ohio Centennial Farm. - The person that deleted it obviously did it in haste.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was speedy deleted, while the game is played in many schoolhouses across the nation. Should've been put up at AFD at the very least, not just speedied. FireSpike 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The are clearly a notable band especialy within their particular genre of power metal. The are on a major label, Metal Blade. The article was speedy deleted. It should have at the very least been tagged and discussed first. They also have quite a lengthy write up on them at All Music Guide which is a lot more than many other notable bands have and it shows that they went on a national tour. They were even interviewed by MTV news, a lot to say for a band of this style.[25] --E tac 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Content was posted by copyright holders for information purposes, not vanity as inferred by the deleting Admin. Request that article be reviewed by a different Admin. BeSinRadio 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted Based on a view from admin that our company is not notable, when our website is currently going under maintainence. from this our article was deleted and we see this as unfair, all the infomation we provied on our wiki profile was freely editable, the infomation was what we have on our website, just as it is un accessable people only have Wikipedia to access infomation relating to our projects and buisness, despite this we would like NRD Studios article restored or if not we want the history of this page so we may start another thread for people to start with and edit once the launch of NRD Studios website is up, NRD Studios will go through a Launch Party Process once this is finished. Robertjmizen 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Point Taken, i can understand the view of wikipedia not having something to link us to, is it possible to retain the NRD Studio profile in archieve until we have relauched our website, and we will all so provide a link, i can promise we exist just as the site is down there is no external source to prove a web based existance, i would of liked it if the admin who firstly was concerned talked to us about this issue and we may have been able to resovle this by launching site early. please expect a summer launch and we will add a artcile then, so people may edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertjmizen (talk • contribs).
Maybe so, as long as we have 3rd party sources to back us up it matters not how long, due to the nature of our market i will assume this will be achieved very quickly. Robertjmizen
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image provided with clear fair-use rationale; speedy deleted by Angr. Objection made at his talk page, requesting undelete and procedural IfD.-- LeflymanTalk 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is a copy of the messages between me and admin Veinor: CME GBM 02:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Note recent arbcom finding that such speedy closures are harmful. Note WP:CSK, he claims #1 when I did not withdraw, then #2 when, even if he did feel the need to "question" that it was in good faith, it wasn't "unquestionably" bad faith as the criterion requires. He also leveled an absolutely specious accusation against me on my talk page. RFD inappropriately speedy closed, un-closure reverted, false accusation of bad faith nomination Random832 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page changed from a deletable entry to a valid article during the afd. Given that there was enough substance and precedent in category:Mailing lists it appeared that there was not enough reason to delete this. Perhaps those who voted for the original version under afd would have liked to rethink their own votes. Shyamal 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Famously contributing in saving the environment / planet makes the subject important enough to warrant an article in any paid Encyclopedia, leave alone a free web Encyclopedia. Sincerely Atulsnischal 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There are several geographical models about the Americas, and every of the other regions in the models have their own article:
Middle America (Americas), Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean, all of these regions, in fact, are part of the North American continent. Some of the reasons expressed to delete the article were that it "duplicated the name of an existing article and duplicated the information", then, should we delete the articles about all those regions part of the North American continent and merge them into North America?. North America as a region, and North America as a continent (that includes Central America and the Caribbean) are two different concepts, and as expressed above, every region of the continent has their own article. In the case of South America, there's no similar problem as in North America. SA meaning the continent or the region, occupies the same territory in both geographical conceptions. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Undelete, as I've said before it is not about the continent, it's about the region ! Cavenbatalk to me 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: The nominator of this deletion review has canvassed (link) the talk pages of those who voted to keep the article on its AfD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
One person requested that this be renamed to Category:Images copyrighted By Wikimedia Foundation (a reasonable title), but the other two participants in the CFD decided they didn't like the existence of a seperate category for WMF materials and now there is no categorization of the hundreds of Wikimedia images used on Wikipedia (see: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Copyright by Wikimedia). That two people, on a CFD with all of three participants, can decide to decategorize hundreds of images strikes me as utterly ridiculous. WMF images are a special class of materials on Wikipedia and deserve to organized as such (whether or not the category is renamed). Dragons flight 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Last removed in June 2006, it has grown exponentially in notability since that time. Some points of evidence for this: during the last deletion review, over 40,000 hits were retrieved. "Steak and a Blowjob Day" now returns 224,000 hits. Shirts and greeting cards (cites one vote for deletion: "When we start seeing holiday cards for this, then sure, we can have an article on it.") can be readily found for purchase, and I've encountered in discussion that I've not started. Facebook currently has 59 groups for the "Holiday", the largest holding 6,049 members. While it's considered not notable to plenty here on Wikipedia, it's clearly notable to enough people to keep coming up in discussion, and to have had another recent spat of creation attempts. In my conclusion, it has an obvious and citable history, enough mass to be notable, and given a stub article to work off, I'm sure I can string together a wiki-standards article. Autocracy 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The band has been active since more than four years and they always had a busy schedule of live performances all over the States, see [41] for 2006 and 2007. Google gives 20,600 hits (!) for them, supporting their notability. Only three users had voted for deletion and judged the band by criteria that more apply to mainstream studio pop music. Their third album is scheduled for June 2007 at Ramseur Records. The article has been stripped of several external links before the deletion, including the links to the band's website and to album reviews, leaving only a link to their myspace page. Cacycle 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Since Rites of Ash has been deleted, the band has composed music for (and has aired on) nine MTV shows, including, "The Real World," "Next," "Pimp My Ride," Gauntlet 2," "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat," "Island Life," "Livin La Haina" (MTV South America, etc. Also, Rites of Ash has collaborated with international DJ Paul Edge and Pablo Manzarek (son of Ray Manzarek of The Doors) on a remix album, and U.S. DMC Supremacy Champion DJ Idee on his music video "Eclectic Dreams" (which will air on MTVu and MTV2).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Most of those involved in the discussion agree that the term "University of Wisconsin" by itself is in fact ambiguous Orange Mike 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Currently a protected redirect. While the AfD was valid then, she has skyrocketed in notability since - #1 on search engines, in the media everywhere. Now meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (Others, 5). I think she is now notable and the redirect should be unprotected, but a decent article (not a stub) should have to be made. CrazyC83 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Met WP:BIO and WP:BLP of an Australian actor who has been prolific on stage and television from 1980 to the present. There was no debate or request for cleanup and nothing left on my talk page. Thin Arthur 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It has been suggested by my Adoptee that this deletion is inappropraite, and I am carrying out a deletion review for their concerns. See the block log [44], the concern here seems to be notability, which I agree is borderline, but this book is available from Amazon and ranked in there top 2000 sellers [45], and this book is in high regard in the management sector [46], [47], [48] - the last two links make it notable for me. Cheers Lethaniol 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was poluted with some self promotional links and then wrongly deleted as non-notable. Multiple publications, conferences have had this subject as a topic and multiple institutions are working on the topic. I've cleaned up the article. Please do not delete but add constructive feedback to make this a good entry. Nextnature 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no debate. I posted a hangon tag and attempted to fix the problem. TVO online was very significant in it's time, just as Magic BBS was. 07tghard 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not a game. After the Notice of Speedy Deletion was added to the page, I added more sources and posted a hang on tag. TVO online is significant becuase unlike many other BBS's it was not run by a individual; it was run by a prominent public television broadcaster. TVOntario The Government of Canada lists this fact. [[53]] Also look at this page [[54]] I urge you to take a look at Magic BBS, it was a another notable BBS that operated during this time. TVO online is just as notable as Magic BBS. 07tghard 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
07tghard 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In the book "Internet BBSs A Guided Tour" by Richard Scott Mark ISBN 1884777309 Greenwich, CT : Manning, 1996 TVO online is listed. This book presents a list of top BBS's of that time. Such and TVO online and Magic BBS The book's back cover states that it is the "best guide to these unique interactive communities" 07tghard 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an article discussing BBS's in the Toronto Star. It mentions TVO online. Toronto Star - Toronto, Ont. Author: Joe Clark Date: May 19, 1994 Start Page: G.7 Section: FAST FORWARD
It is mentioned in the article along with 2 other bbses. Question: How does Magic BBS meet notability requirements? I'm just curious because it might give me ideas on how to prove that TVO online meets notability requirements. 07tghard 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is one more source that I found: The first two quotes are context that show third quote's significance TVO online was used as a tool to obtain public opinion for a project run by the government of Ontario. [[55]]
[[56]] [[57]] In this document TVOnline is mentioned as one of the networks used before the internet became mainstream. Page 358 - In addition TVOnline is mentioned on page 340 [[58]] It is then mentioned as a tool that helps support learning is Ontario: [[59]]
food for thought http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
In the deletion log, it is referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows "Fiji", dating back to August 2006. And if you read the reason for deletion, you find out, at that point, one thought this would be the next Windows release. This is no longer the case, more information about "Fiji" has appeared, and we know now, that this will be a service pack for Vista. The article will no longer lead to more confusion surrounding the future of Vienna, as it now is clear it is not a part of Vienna. Since it will include a updated kernel, it is important to have an article about Fiji, because it is clearly a major service pack. Furthermore, for clarifying that Windows Vienna will be a minor release, considering the kernel update Vista will receive, it is important to have an article about Fiji. There are several sources talking about Vista SP1 and Fiji, and nearly all of them are from 2007, clearly a decision from August 206 is not valid anymore. Mr Mo 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (Note: added by User:Mr Mo inside the comment, moved outside by me). GRBerry 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
established notability for a local preformer Crazychris2704 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC) This artilce was deleted by NawlinWiki on March 7, 2007. I believe the musical group, Simpleton, has established notability through local media coverage. They are a rising music group based out of Central Oklahoma. Listed on the wikipedia page were several newspaper and magazine articles ranging from July 2003 to March 2007.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable and consistancy Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC) The William Sledd article was deleted without any real consensus and the reason "absolutely nothing appears to suggest that the subject has become notable outside the Youtube community/geek subculture" is dubious. The discussion linked to Television programs and magazine articles which mentioned Mr. Sledd. Moreover, the bar seems to be MUCH lower for other YouTube-celebrities: Geriatric1927, Esmée Denters, Chad Vader all linked from the YouTube article itself. Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This particular gentleman, Mr. Sledd, is a part of my community. He has a HUGE influence on the community, now has his own fashion line, and has been discussed on the view and numerous other national media outlets. I believe he is worthy of an article, and I'm not even gay.
Here we go again. This is news to me. When did he make his own fashion line? I highly doubt that fact. The article is being deleted I don't even have to waste my time. (Pleasantview) Unless the information was factually inaccurate, I see no reason that this article should be deleted. He is a minor, though recognized, pop culture figure, as evidenced by his appearances on The View and in Elle magazine.
Sources (from this week's google news):
Additionally:
There were others in the original discussion that were disregarded without comment. Reboot 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) The article is currently deleted. I don't think editors have the sources from the article memorized. Is there a way for an admin to check the claimed sources in the deleted article? -- Richard Daly 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
4, count em' 4 notable mentions, in notable articles... are we notable yet??? Myg0tlefty 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Relist for further debate, most voters for delete did so before the arguements to keep were expressed Nitsansh 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted due to non significance of the person, however he was a candidate who ran for Memember of Parliament in two seperate elections, and is mentioned in at least two seperate articles on wikipedia. Admittedly, I only had a brief paragraph but I mentioned his candidacy as well as his party affillations. --GNU4eva 12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
New third-party reliable sources have been found. Deletion was wrong. Apoplexic Dude 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The comic's showing at 2007 WCCA makes it appear notable SanfordAbernethy 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) — SanfordAbernethy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Wikipedia, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a coup from all sides with a total lack of respect for wikipedia's deletion process. The sub-categories are being deleted but they are also all auto-generated via {{Template:Infobox city}}. This template was recently changed removing the list of 5000+ cities. The template was tampered with several times prior to the closing of the CfD to only support deletion. Furthermore the CfD is not even closed and appears to be far from a discussion and closer to a big nasty poll. Finally the category's explanatory FAQ, which could be found on the CAT was removed. Again this is a masacre from all ends without any discussion. Deleting admin did not follow the correct procedures. He is trying to sneek this one by via violating WP:CIV in failling to notify interested users, failling to have a conversation, and failing to notify interested paries. This CfD gives other reasons on why it should be kept. --CyclePat 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I do not understand the deletion of the article. I came accross this usefull piece of software by googling to its now deleted wikipedia page. I've not written the original article. And I'm not involved in the development of this software. The article was not perfect and certainly needed "Wikify" but was useful. Before deletion I added external sources, and a simple search on Google for "pligg" returns 2.090.000 results, thus I don't understand the "not notable" (WP:WEB and WP:ORG) argument. The deletion process was initiated by a false argument (User:Mattarata) saying that Pligg is a copycat of Digg: this is a mistake, one is a service the other is a software to create easily multiple services of the same kind. Benoit rigaut 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) I'm the closing admin; the original AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pligg. The point I guess I was trying to make to this editor on my talk page was that notability on Wikipedia is generally based on reliable sources, not google hits. Grandmasterka 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm frankly at a loss as to why a supermajority for keep on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_noob_(Second_nomination) became delete and salt, and the administrator isn't responding to a polite request I made, so this seems the only way to find out. Adam Cuerden talk 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
company's concept based on its own experience - please revise for not deleting Nevalex 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The first version of the article was deleted for not beeing notable, but the second version was not a recreation of the original version but an entirely new one. The second version was deleted by FayssalF in a speedy deletion and he messaged me: "Please do not recreate Element td article. If you want it recreated you must go through Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. -- FayssalF", but I disgree with this, since this is not a recreation of the original version, and I claim that the notability has been achieved by me and this new article should be at least discussed before beeing deleted. It would be great if FayssalF, or anybody else, could point out what exactly is missing, so I can provide additional material/sources. Cisz Helion 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (I'm not sure to how the article can be reviewed, as there seems to be no trace of it left, so I made it temporarily available on my user page. Cisz Helion 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article in question was voted upon weeks ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element TD) and the result was to delete it. It was recreated yesterday by User:Cisz Helion, who is a new user and i don't blame him for recreating it. User:Shenme reported the incident on March 1 before i deleted it. I don't have any problem with recreating it again if people agree. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll summarize what we have got so far. An article about Element TD got deleted, recreated, deleted again. After that I created another acrticle about Element TD, but I wouldn't call this a recreation, because my version is totally different. FayssalF disagrees with my view, he calls what I did a recreation. This bothers me a bit, as it seems to me, I am held reliable for the bad work of other contributors, and I am concerned that my version might be kept deleted without ever beeing evaluated or looked at. I came up with what I call several independant external sources about eletd. The old version didn't have such references. I claim that at least the battle.net news section is a good source, and even if the maps homepage, the Epic War entry, and two independent flash games inspired by the map (this and this) are not meeting wikipedias standards for good sources, overall notability should be achieved. Random832 seems to disagree with this, although he seems to have missed some small changes I did to the latest version. All in all the question seems to be, if the number and quality of the references I provided is enough to establish notability. Cisz Helion 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I agree (based on my recollection of the article) that this was highly POV, and I can easily imagine that there was no good version to revert to. The underlying problem is that the institution discussed in the article was and is highly controversial, together with its parent organization, WWASPS. Unfortunately, deleting a subject because it is controversial does not make the controversy go away; it merely makes it appear that Wikipedia is suppressing free speech. I think a reasonable neutral article could be written from the various scraps of material that have been contributed at various times. orlady 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Appears to have been speedied in the belief that it's an empty category (there was no discussion about it, and the reason given appears to be some sort of automatically generated list). This category is meant to be usually empty, as articles appearing in it are often resorted quickly by hand. I'd recommend a speedy undeletion to avoid disrupting the AfD process while this DRv is ongoing (just deleting part of a process without altering the process first can be unintentionally disruptive). --ais523 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Since Rites of Ash has been deleted, the band has composed music for (and has aired on) nine MTV shows, including, "The Real World," "Next," "Pimp My Ride," Gauntlet 2," "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat," "Island Life," "Livin La Haina" (MTV South America, etc. Also, Rites of Ash has collaborated with international DJ Paul Edge and Pablo Manzarek (son of Ray Manzarek of The Doors) on a remix album, and U.S. DMC Supremacy Champion DJ Idee on his music video "Eclectic Dreams" (which will air on MTVu and MTV2).
As for song credits, most of the MTV online archive for our credits have since been taken down. I could only find this site with credit of our work: http://www.mtv.com/#/ontv/dyn/realworld-season17/episode/featured_music.jhtml?episodeId=96397 I have the signed MTV contracts right here. We have numerous press releases and related materials on our websites: www.ritesofash.com -and- www.myspace.com/ritesofash User:ritesofashritesofash 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have been working on this list a lot and some other people too, and I know many people find it very interesting. At least one person find his way to Wikipedia by once being directed to this page. It is not the most important knowledge of course, but still it is something which facinates many people. Of course it was not ready yet, it never will be, but Wikipedia is a place in constant work, isn't it? Maybe it could be divided into a couple of subpages so as not be so long. Many pages still have links to this page. If it is not undeleted, I will have to create it again and adding all the information from my memory. It's much work, and I find it hard to see that I can remember even a fracion to start with. Also, the page was deleted after just a short period of voting. Shouldn't a vote like this be on for at least a week, so that everyone concerned might have time to notice it? John Anderson 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I closed the AFD as a delete. SimonP undeleted this, but the reasons he gave for doing so are uncompelling to me. The argument seems to be "this is an arterial road in Toronto, therefore it should have an article". I agree that there were a number of votes for keeping it, but these were not based on any valid reasoning I can see. I use the "nontrivial coverage in reliable sources" yardstick, but the sources given in the article are mentions of the road in passing. I just don't see how there's an encyclopedia article to be had on this topic. Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was deleted because someone else also uses the same name (George Borowski)and that there was no proof that the other Guitar George had legitimate claims to the name aswell. Since the deletion of the page there has come to light many newspaper articles, TV appearences (in England and Spain) and Pictures of Guitar George using that name and showing his various appearances. This can be found at guitargeorge.net. His latest appearance being on the BBC1 TV show 'When Will I Be Famouse' on sat 17th feb which can still be viewed on the bbc website bbc.co.uk/whenwillibefamous. Only because of the coincidental use of the same name has Guitar George been deleted. If this person had had a different name there would have been no question of his inclusion in wikipedia. Guitarminator 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
similar articles intact(ex:THIMUN) MiguelNS 11:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
eGullet has 10 cites in the New York Times in the last three years, is a site with interviews and posts by notable food personalities like Food Network hosts Anthony Bourdain and Alton Brown, former LA Times Food editor Russ Parsons, hosted a chronicle of the opening of the well-known new restaurant Alinea. I know there are a million food message boards out there, but eGullet attracts a significant number of important people in the food world, such as Mediterranean cookbook author Paula Wolfert, sommelier Mark Slater at Citronelle in Washington, D.C., one of the nation's top restaurant, and others. I hope that the deletion will be reconsidered. Wnissen 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
My article was deleted over and over and finally a block was put on the article name "Graham Mitchell". The problem is that not a single moderator responded to any of my 'hold on' requests or responded to my points/questions raised in the talk page. The reasons for deletion were inconsistent and inaccurate. For example, one admin deleted due to COI but Wikipedia's own COI page states that COI is not in itself grounds for deletion. When I point these things out to admins, they ignore me, or find another excuse (which I also disprove). It seems that the admins are not acting according to the Wikipedia spirit or rules. Full story too long to repeat here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funkybear (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This website is probably the most popular and best known place to play board games online. Principally German-style/Euro boardgames. It has had a feature article or two in Games Magazine and other hobby publications (unfortunately not available online, for the most part, though I’m looking). Chunky Rice 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Here's an article from PC World [80]. The Games Magazine article was in the February 2004 issue.Chunky Rice 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AFD was closed by User:Quarl who said the result was Merge. However, only 1 person (of the 10 people who joined in) suggested a merger. 5 suggested keeping and 4 suggested deleting. Seems like the result should have been Keep, or maybe No Consensus (with default to keep). The AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Breed (ECW). TJ Spyke 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn. Was speedy deleted as spam. This is the major company for electric signs in Las Vegas and has a long history. To not have an article about this company is like saying that lights are not a part of Vegas. They are behind the Image:Welcome to vegas.jpg sign along with many other historic Vegas signs. Their bone yard itself is a museum and the location for numerous movies and TV shows! Vegaswikian 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion has gotten too long to transclude. Please opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/User:Essjay/RFC. |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion put on a sub-page at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/Essjay. Please review the discussion there. |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn based on the notability of Walt Sorensen as an artist, I shall quote from Wikipedia:Notability (artists) “notability as an artist is defined by the notability of his/her art. Notable art is: b) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display.” Under this guide line Walt Sorensen has 6 notable art pieces. The 5 pieces that were displayed during the Nantou are part of a permanent collection on public display in the Nantou city hall. The Last piece was a photograph of West Valley City including the E-center in West Valley City, this piece was commissioned by West Valley and 2 Prints were made of it. One is on public display in the Nantou Taiwan city hall, the other is on Public Display in West Valley City’s City Hall.photodude 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please restore this to keep with the "X historical" notice. Same for Willy on Wheels, Pelican Shit, Supertroll, DNA vandal, North Carolina vandal, Videogamer!'s pages, and bring back the templates too, tag them with some notice about historical. I don't care much for the overinflated Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Just cut back the glorification and make it read like a school report: heh, now I got one over you wiki-admins! Dalbogue0 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please temporarily copy this to my user space or e-mail me an XML dump so I can fork this article. I am primarily looking for the versions and authors before the first AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines), since I have an XML dump of it from its recreation to the second AfD (located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines (second nomination)). It was a fairly well-written article, but totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thanks. --Transfinite 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Fascist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|UCfD) Someone keeps deleting my Category of Fascist Wikipedians. I am a fascist and I should be allowed to have a category. Why is no one deleting the Capitalist Wikipedians category? Why is my category being singled out? Someone keeps doing a "speedy delete" on it. It is absurd that same category can be deleted over and over without discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past supposedly. Billy Ego 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
clarifying policy: I just read through the relevant policy, and want to clarify something that had confused me. The fact that an administrator determined that consensus had been reached is sufficient for VegaDark's speedy re-deletion of the category, above; but that determination is not officially considered relevant to the ultimate outcome of this discussion. This discussion is essentially an appeal of that determination. Now that I understand it, the policy generally makes sense to me, but in this case, it seems to lead to an injustice, as Random832 has pointed out. The administrator's initial determination of consensus was clearly incorrect, and that administrator is currently on wikibreak, and unavailable for comment. Thus, the process leaves the category deleted, which to me seems a significant violation of the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith. Finally, I feel that Utgard Loki's vote above should be disregarded, because a clear refutation of his/her reasoning was given, and no rebuttal ever came. -Pete 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living person. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this individual's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and other participants' comments in that RfC, as well as recent threads on the notability policy pages for related discussion. In addition, it has been noted that this article's reports of unproven allegations raise WP:LIVING issues, and also that the proposed NOTNEWS guideline would also strongly support deletion. The closing administrator closed the AfD as no consensus, defaulting to keep, and it is not my contention that there was in fact a consensus to delete the article; but the "do no harm" test underlying WP:LIVING as applied to a non-notable person strongly supports deletion of this article, whose encyclopedic value is slight, as a matter of principle. It would be desirable for the community to have the opportunity to address this set of issues in a situation that is not wiki-notorious a la Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt. A deletion review is requested. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I created this article because this person is sited in a number of Wikipedia articles, most notably Goldman Sachs, Friends Central School, and Haverford College. The references stated in these articles were not added by me. I can assure you this article presents no conflict of interest besides the fact that he is related. I meticulously made sure that the article was unbiased and presented the facts, not opinions. This article should remain because Wikipedia should have an article at this person, which I wrote because no one else did. Barry L. Zubrow is a noted New Jersey diplomat and well-known former business executive. This fact is further conveyed through the many sources of information available on the internet about Barry L. Zubrow. I sited many of these sources in my article. There are many similar articles like this one which present greater conflicts of interest that Wikipedia should try to prevent instead of spending time worrying about this trivial conflict. It would be a travesty not to post this beneficial and unbiased article on this site. Furthermore, there is no way to prove that this article presents a conflict of interest because one cannot prove that I have a relation to this person. Therefore, for all these reasons, this article should remain on Wikipedia. Mrzubrow 21:42, March 4, 2007 (UTC)
Please see Barry Zubrow, a rewritten repost of Barry L. Zubrow, by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Mrzubrow. I will be back later with evidence. SeanMD80talk | contribs 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I know Mrzubrow; he is Barry Zubrow's son. I would give more details, but I'd like to respect his privacy. I believe this qualifies as a COI. Ferraridriver303 seems to be a sock puppet. Atungare 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop hating on Mrzubrow just because you're jealous of his 1337 skillz. |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It Is A Professional Reviews Source Mangle 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) This definition was wrongly deleted as advertising spam. Tiny Mix Tapes is a professional reviews source that has been running for over five years, with a readership ranking in the hundreds of thousands. They reciently added three banner ads to the site, but they are ads for music related material and not invasive. Please add this back in. There is no reason why this page should be deleted and other music sites like Popmatters and Pitchfork are allowed to stay. Why else is that "professional reviews" catagory on every album page?--Mangle 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closing admin based the closure on an inaccurate and unsupported generalization that there is "recent community consensus against 'in popular culture' articles" (there is no such consensus, more than 50% of pop culture articles are surviving AfD and there are no specific policies about in pop culture articles) - and also the closing admin called it a "mess" which is a personal bias. Request a neutral closure. Please close based on the specifics of the strengths of the arguments. In this case, WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish the entire article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale, many of the entries are perfectly valid for Wikipedia. Stbalbach 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was tagged with a speedy notice with as reason: non notable. Since this entry asserted notability as being a program on a notable radio station, I think it at least deserves an AFD discussion. This is not blatantly non-notable to be deleted under CSD A7. - Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted under CSD A7 due to a lack of assertion of notability. I submit that the station, being the first result under a Google search for "9412" and #8 for "classic rock" "internet radio", as well as having been listed on the iTunes Radio service for two years or more, should make it sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and I propose that the article be restored and edited to reflect that. (I'm not sure about actual listener figures, as such information is only readily available from Shoutcast stations, which this is not one of. Haikupoet 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
i think it was wrong to delete that article because its a notable person and she is a celebrity in her country. I would like to see the deletion of that page reverted. i dont now if im sending this message right. but in ohter case help me.--Matrix17 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I`m in a edit war with User:F3rn4nd0. He created another image, DepAdSegColombia.png in order to use it for the article Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad. That article used to have my image, which is a logo with better resolution, scanned from my personal documents. User:F3rn4nd0 added to my image a speedy deletion tag, under the argument that it isn`t the logo for DAS. So I added the hangon tag and replied on the talk page, but admin User:JesseW ignored all this and deleted the image. I left a message for him and he hadn`t replied. So I`m requesting reverting the deletion of my image, in order to use it in the DAS article and replace the current one because it have better quality. Also, if you check the history for DepAdSegColombia.png a previous version say that he created the logo (someone already changed that) so I`m also working under the theory that he re-created the logo on Paint or something like that. ometzit<col> 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was deleted and protected by Lucky 6.9. There is no AfD log for the page, and the admin who deleted it has since left the project. The page was deleted as a vanity page. However, the artist does have some notability, and I believe that he passes WP:MUSIC. "DJ Red Alert" comes up with over 1 million hits on Google. His entry in the All Music Guide gives evidence of some notable accomplishments, including membership in the Universal Zulu Nation and Boogie Down Productions, and hosting a show on WRKS-FM. He was mentioned in the VH1 documentary miniseries "And You Don't Stop: 30 Years of Hip-Hop." Stebbins 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Mentions:
This is just from a few minutes search. --69.203.122.177 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Subject is a notable columnist appearing both in The New York Times and Washington Post. A news.google.com search shows many hits, as goes a normal Google search. He's a candidate for political office and he's been interviewed in the media and on radio. In fact, he's going to be on The Daily Show on March 9, 2007. It's clear deleters have a POV agenda and aggressive bias. He's a syndicated columnist. UIUC.rhh 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Senior hurler playing at the highest level, is quite notible Gnevin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
No consensus for deletion with misinterpretation of WP:COI by closing admin.
Robert K S 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
|
---|
|
---|
|
---|
|
---|
|
---|
|
---|