|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am 7shaquan and not to long ago a posted an article about the American Actress Ciara Bravo who is known as Katie on the nick show big time rush. Sadly my post was delted by an admin Cirt and he has also been deleting other articles of this name at a constant rate without a firm foundation on why he is doing so. I have asked him nicely to repost, but he continues to deny. He says that the article does not meet the notary standards, but I have managed more than once to prove this statement wrong to him, but he continues to be stubborn and so i ask you to please repost my article and show me that wiki is the civilized community it is thought to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Something else you can look at to determine the notary of the person is of coarse their twitter account, look at all of her followers:[3] If thats not enough for you then just look at the youtube vids being created for her:[4] [5] [6] And last but not least to show some of the media she has starred in: [7] [8] [9] Now Will you reconsider, are those enough references for you--7shaquan (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is another link that mentions her as a main character on big time rush [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Just another article[11][12]--7shaquan (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
While the arguments given at the CfD were quite reasonable, two important aspects were omitted:
|
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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted under false assumptions
Restore Simple Instant Messenger and move it to Sim-IM! Don't restore Serverless Instant Messenger! --phobie (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The closure of this page was not the result of a discussion but that of a poll as the closing admin based the closure on the numbers and not the weight of arguements presented. After requesting a review based on the arguements the admin responded that the consensus was to delete. Firstly the category meest the requirements of WP:CATEGORY and does not meet the requirement of WP:OC#Trivia but is actually reafirmed as an appropriate category by that guideline as its defines overcategorization as something can easily be left out of a biography, which it isnt. WP:CATEGORY requiures that categories be what readers would most likely use to look for articles, this category had 400~600 hits per month Jan 10(691),Dec 09(446),Nov 09(537)(Feb 10 had 697 but that would have been partially inflated by the CfD[16] and partially deflated as it only 3/4 of the month). According to all the arguements raised this category meets all of WP guidelines in deciding the suitability of the category. The only argument for deletion was that its not a defining trate but triva as prescribe by WP:OC#Trivia, none of the proponents supported this positions with any facts or sources as such its these arguements should have ignored as WP:OR. Gnangarra 01:46, 26 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Karukayil (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Company who delivers online news. I think the Pobble page should be recreated following the launch of the new company in March. The company will be writing online PDF files and distributing them on the web. Despite previous reports the article is unnecessary, this new Pobble has nothing to do with the previous article. Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AFD discussion appears to have been closed prematurely by the closing editor. I suggested on the admin's talk page that there didn't appear to be clear consensus to delete the page and that the discussion was still on-going - to which the admin simply replied with "consensus was to delete". The original AFD poster stated that there were a lack of proper citable references that proved the article was more than WP:OR. Other editors pointed out a number of acceptable references that disproved the opinion that the article was original research, as well as pointing out comments from various Pixar staff members pointing out that such references were deliberately placed.... which is where we were when the discussion stopped and the page was deleted. Would adding an "improve references" tag have been more appropriate over an AFD? Thanks for your review and opinions. SpikeJones (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I have no idea if I'm doing this correctly. The instructions seem geared for a software designer, not a casual user of Wikipedia. The above contributors (not Admins) are well known students of the Vee Jitsu system of martial arts whom apparently have a problem with certain official heirs of Professor Visitation and block attempts by said designated heirs (in this case, Professor Jose Velez--one of the official Senior Instructors of previously mentioned students) to publish factual information. I want an official Wikipedia Admin to retrieve the page in question for me and supply it to me for review/revision/republication and/or show just cause why this information has been censored. Thank you, David at [email protected] -- 99.16.0.21 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Mark Dearey has been elected to the upper house of the Irish National legislature. He was a local politician but now has ascended. Many references in national news and TV.[21] [22] [23] zero=>hero[24] MoyrossLADY (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am the principal author of this entry, which was deleted essentially because of lack of notability of the subject. Not agreeing with the decision to delete, I have done further work to provide evidence that the subject is indeed notable. A new version of the article currently resides at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:GBataille/Keyontyli_Goffney. Goffney has received significant coverage in the mainstream media, not only in connection with his crime spree but also for his life-story and career in general. (The article in Details, in particular, covers Goffney's entire career.) Sometimes LGBT- and, in particular, porn-related articles receive particular scrutiny by the Wikipedia community. That is understandable; on the other hand, such scrutiny should not prevent the legitimate documentation of these issues. I submit that anyone who has been featured several times in television newscasts, on Saturday Night Live (even if only in a minor role), in ads of companies such as Nike, in a national mainstream magazine, AND in numerous gay pornographic publications is indeed notable. GBataille (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed as "keep" with no closing rationale. While there was a numerical landslide in favour of keeping the article, polling is not a substitute for discussion. The main reason for people arguing for keeping were "notability", although no argument seemed to successfully argue that said "fringe theories" were notable (just asserted that they were "notable" without explanation), and, indeed, held by enough people to qualify for coverage per WP:FRINGE; indeed, one of the sections covers a "fringe theory" that is quite wide held! Additionally, there was no argument on why the most "sourced" (read: linked to religious demagogues and satire) section, the section on divine retribution, was acceptable for an article about a natural phenomenon; indeed, one of the keep !voters argued that the section had weak sourcing. Thus, I believe the close was wrongly judged—I assume the article was kept simply because of the numerical strength of the keep arguments—and should be overturned. Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello all. This page was speedied under criterion A10; see the user talk page discussion. In my opinion, it is good to have an article covering 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241–4248 and related Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (e.g. Rule 12.2) and case law (which includes several notable U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Washington v. Harper.) Note that, although much of the material in articles such as United States also appears in other articles (e.g. Geography of the United States, History of the United States, etc.), we find it useful to summarize them in one broad-scoped article. The same is true with this subject matter, especially in light of the fact that the procedures for dealing with incompetence to stand trial, insanity pleas, civil commitment, involuntary medication, etc. are all interconnected in the federal statutory framework. I should also point out that procedures under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 are not adequately covered under other articles. If the deletion is allowed to stand, please restore to my userspace for reworking. Thank you for your consideration. Tisane (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was speedy deleted by Nyttend as a G4 after JBsupreme initiated a MfD. I attempted to discuss this with Nyttend before bringing this to DRV [25] without resolution. [26] If Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wishes to maintain his biography in his own userspace it is his prerogative to do so. While I think someone should have offered to userfy the David Mertz article for Lulu during or after the third AfD, a G4 deletion was improper. As I understand it, Lulu largely wrote the David Mertz article so there is also not a GFDL licensing/attribution issue here since he was the original author (and if Nyttend disagreed then a simple userfication/history merge would have resolved it). Considering this AN/I discussion regarding the third AfD, the reasoning JBsupreme used as justification for initiating a MfD for the bio page in Lulu's userspace is also questionable at best. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
"(cited sources do not support article)" Rturtle (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle The article Mindful Eating was deleted without discussion by DragonflySixtyseven for the reason "(cited sources do not support article)". I have discussed the issue with DragonflySixtyseven but am unable to get a clear statement of why this would qualify for speedy deletion without discussion. The admin suggested I discuss the matter with other admins. Then later suggested he would, but has yet to resolve or explain the issue. I have made repeated offers to provide additional references for any subject matter in the article and made an effort to clarify book references, included in the article, that were possibly overlooked by the admin.
|
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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the page entitled "The Only Exception". While the single is just released, it has significant notability because it's been confirmed as a third single, it's released a music video, also I've written what I considered to be a good enough article for the song (which can be viewed here from my user sandbox). In my opinion I think this page should be allowed to be made (I made one before under the title "The Only Exception (song)" but it was deleted and I was told to contest it's deletion here. In the articles deletion discussion page in January 2010, it stated that the reason the page was deleted was because there were no reliable sources, in February reliable sources confirmed that the song would be released as a single, among other things about the song, so seeing as though that was the main factor in the page being deleted I think that it should be allowed to be remade. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:13, 21 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hi I am writing to request an undeletion for the page I entered about the English football fanzine cfcuk. It seem (I think) that I made the initial mistake of saying that the cfcuk fanzine was ‘notable’, not realising that ‘notability’ is an extremely important Wikipedia term. The page consisted of a brief history about the cfcuk football fanzine and a review of whom it has interviewed, it’s ‘standing’ amongst the Chelsea support by way of personalities visiting the matchday stall from where it is sold (prior to and after Chelsea home matches) and also some information concerning the ‘special editions’ that have been published and also its relevance to both the club itself and the supporters. Whilst I understand that I cannot ask why fanzines from other football clubs are allowed to stay within the Wikipedia website and the cfcuk one isn’t, I must say that I feel it is, nevertheless, somewhat unfair considering I feel that all the reasons that were cited for the deletion were answered with reasonable sources and explanations quoted each time. I hope that, after reading this, you will reconsider your decision and reinstate the afore mentioned and now deleted cfcuk page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi I only put the submission here because I thought that I had put it in the wrong place - not because I thought that the decision wasn't quick enough. As I said when replying to the AfD debate, the cfcuk fanzine has been mentioned in plenty of other articles and publications. The cfcuk fanzine is well known amongst Chelsea supporters clubs around the world including the UK, Europe and the USA. As was stated in the now deleted article, the fanzine has been 'endorsed' by several current and ex-Chelsea footballers and celebrities who support the side by way of their appearances within the fanzine in interviews and meeting Chelsea supporters at the cfcuk matchday stall. I would still like to have a page about the fanzine considered for the Wikipedia website and would, if allowed, rewrite and re-present another article. Other than that, would I be able to retrieve the now deleted article for my own use? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The redirect Craig hoffman → Craig Hoffman was speedily deleted under CSD R3 ("Implausible typos") by Bwilkins. I do not believe typing an article's name in lowercase is implausible, and WP:R specifies that "likely alternative capitalizations" is a valid use of a redirect. I tried to contact the deleting admin, but their response was, "No, not the way the search engine works. We don't do redirects from lowercase." I don't feel this was a valid deletion, much less a valid speedy deletion under CSD R3. A precedent is extremely well set in terms of other redirects of the same kind. --Swarm(Talk) 22:17, 20 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello - this page http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox has had a substantial rewrite including the addition of 13 inline citations, linking to 2 BBC pieces, competition wins, high scores in blind tastings etc. In a previous incarnation, the reasons for deletion were due to notability, and I would appreciate guidance as to whether this article can now be relisted, and any further work that needs to be done, relisted or not. I am not sure where to get a copyright free picture for the infobox, for example. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted with only five !votes? Doesn't sound like much in the way of consensus to me. Also, bear in mind that delete !votes were in the minority. jgpTC 22:49, 19 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
temporary review so we can copy content to community website I would like to request a temporary review of Individual server rules in Four Square. I am a member of Squarefour, a Four square league that meets in Boston, and we would love to have the 300 or so deleted rules and variations on our website. I have tried in vain to recover the material from Google Cache and Archive.org's Wayback Machine. The material and work that went into it is otherwise lost. We would really appreciate it if someone could either have the article restored to my userspace, or emailed to me at my username at gmail, whichever is easier for you. As a fellow contributor, thank you for your attention, time, and continued service. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Game is non-notable. According to WP:VG/GL, "Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry." This article does not do that. Yes, it did get some coverage from the BBC and a few other places around election time, but what makes this Flash game more notable than the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama? Yekrats (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Following what appears to be a dispute with others, Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and protected his user talk page. I undid this deletion as out of policy. Spartaz has re-deleted it and labeled himself as retired. Since people do not own their talk page or any other page, I ask that the page be undeleted and unprotected. If Spartaz feels that it ought to be deleted, he may nominate it for WP:MfD. WP:RTV#How to leave states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion." Sandstein 07:59, 19 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
My Name is Ben Blum. I have been working as a QA manager and would like to contribute from my experience to Wikipedia's readers. my first article "BugUp Tracker" was deleted claiming that the software presented was not notable enough. I requested some aids with regards to what proof is needed to show notability? I have reviewed several other bug tracking software that do exist in Wikipedia (Action Request System,StarTeam and others. Are these bug tracking systems considered to be more notable than BugUp Tracker because of the fact that they are connected to BMC/Borland? is this the only reason? it should have no bearings when the competence of Bug tracking systems is being discussed and compared, yet both of them appear in Wikipedia and in the bug tracking systems comparison page (Comparison of issue tracking systems). I am working on a series of articles that compare below the radar bug tracking systems, other than the more notable ones, such as JIRA or Bugzilla and more in the neighborhood of the aforementioned Action Request System and StarTeam. since i am planning more comparison articles, it would generate more reference material with Wikipedia to BugUp Tracker. If acclaiming notability resides within links outside of Wikipedia, feel free to google BugUp Tracker, for reviews. I can understand the scrutiny required from Wikipedia's editors to judge the material inserted into the database, yet with that being said, they should also keep an open mind for newcomers and data that is of interest to Wikipedia's readers. If there is no significant difference between the likes of Action Request System and StarTeam to BugUp Tracker, I request that my info page regarding this software to be reinstated. If there are actions needed for me to prove notability, please let me know what they are, instead of just answering that all the editors agreed that the software is not notable enough, with no response to my questions and arguments. thanks Benblum1 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
It would be beneficial to the completion of List of ethnic slurs article for this to redirect to List of ethnic slurs#N. I fixed the redirects to most of the other terms on that article but this one has been deleted. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 23:08, 17 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe I had adequately addressed the issues raised at the deletion debate by editing Richey Edwards appropriately and adding relevant secondary sourcing, actions which, given the limited rationale of the closer, I have no idea if they were seen or taken note of. Since I have contacted the closing admin previously regarding a different deletion and received no response, I am coming straight here. Hiding T 21:01, 17 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'd like to review the former NetWrix Corporation page to find out why it was deleted. The page is no longer accessible, but if possible, I'd like to have the former page sent to my account (SMschimmel) in order to find out what was wrong with it and edit/improve it for future submission. SMschimmel (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Per http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Colorado_Springs_mayor_Robert_M._Isaac, please restore. This image was offhandedly deleted under the assumption that photos of this deceased politician were readily available. They are not, and I am 5000 miles away. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is not a non-free image as recorded in wiki guidelines 129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Apologies if this is incorrect as I am not a member. The production image was deleted from Once Upon a Midnight on the grounds that it was a non-free image and/or that it could be replaced. See: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 24#File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg. Both statements are false as the image is not under copyright and has appeared in conjunction with the production's publicity. For proof, this image accompanied all the articles listed on the bottom of the wiki page and is publically available. It cannot be replaced as cameras and video cameras are not permitted in theatrical performances. It is relevent to the article as it conveys the costume, style and Mise-en-scène of this unique Japanese/Australian performance, which is unlikely to be repeated. Other articles on musical theatre include a production image. See [[40]], [[41]], and[[42]] please advise (129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
VK Bosna is a sports team that is part of the USD Bosna sports society. I ask that the waterpolo club article be brought back. There was everything there that was necessary. There were references - the official team's website. There was another website. If more is needed, I can provide more. What really bothers me is that there are many other sport team/club articles that had significantly less content - yet they are not deleted. I can give a a list of a number of such articles if you guys want. The bottom line is that this is the best waterpolo club in the entire country, it is an established club in a recently formed new league, and there really is no reason why it should be deleted. LAz17 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Also, do check http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Sarajevo#Sports , as you guys can see it is missing a link among the sport clubs in the city. (LAz17 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)). Comment, can someone please make it possible for me to see the AfD on this, as well as the article itself as was before deletion? Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a newly formed waterpolo league in the city of Sarajevo. It is a "canton" league (meaning something like regional, a canton is a small administrative division of a country). This is due to the fact that Bosnia as a country is still greatly influenced from the war that is long over, life is centralized into large cities. This is as close as it gets to a national league, and the effort should be applauded. Instead of speedy deleting articles they know nothing about, editors should first do a little research, and if unfamiliar with the language, seek help. LAz17, please find additional sources on the team, anything on the internet that is a reputable reliable source (e.g. newspaper websites, news, etc.), so that you may appease the nay sayers (being nice here, I would have rather said the uninformed ignorants who nevertheless stick noses in where they know nothing about). Turqoise127 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (author translated to 3 other languages; article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia; wikilinked by another article) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (> 6000 Google hits) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator with the condition that the article was deleted/userfied. Effectively this was a speedy deletion when all the comments were to keep or withdraw (none was to delete). The admin's decision to delete the article over-rode the consensus view. I recommend that the article is re-created. If necessary, the AfD can run to completion to make sure there is an established consensus to delete/userfy or keep. Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Nominating a page for AFD while tagged with construction was raised by user:Cirt which dealt with user:Epbr123's inappropriate timing of the nomination to delete for an article with a construction tag and undergoing active improvement. Both users are admins. This is a separate issue to the article being deleted/userfied. The userfied version was made available at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Ash (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was originally deleted per discussion from another author stating lack of proper citations,they are an American band but had no American citations and was a non charting single. I agree with why it was ORIGINALLY deleted, HOWEVER i am a new creator and would love to be able to create the page. The song now is currently on the billboard and more information has become available, i have American citations that meet with wiki standards and believe it originally complies with WP:NSONG standards. So i am requesting a chance to undelete the article so i can improve the page. Please share your thoughts. thank you (L-l-CLK-l-l (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was deleted after minimal discussion (just five votes) on grounds of insufficient sourcing and citation, as well as being unauthoritative within its subject matter (psychology). Request review and possible undelete on grounds that this article is not actually a "hard science" artice despite the "psychology" association; the "connections" and "moods" discussed on the page have been well known for many years, and are not exclusively anglo-centric as asserted in the discussion. Accordingly, arguing from a "citation needed" and strict-constructionist WP Policy mentality on this particular article is well-intentioned, but entirely misplaced. Requesting review rather than working through deleting admin not out of disrespect, but just out of not having time for prolonged discussion today. Ender78 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Update: Article has already been extensively reworked and additional citations added. Additionally, the article has been flagged for further attention within the Visual Arts WikiProject. I notice that there are still certain parties who are attempting to (ab)use policy as a blunt instrument to tell other people how it's going to be, but if the purpose here is to promote quality content, I believe I am taking the right actions and going in the right direction. I welcome those who disagree to provide logical arguments on the page's talk. Ender78 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] You'll notice that amongst these links you'll find not only your cherished academic credentials, but also commercial art experts and authorities on color such as Pantone. And these nine links are in addition to the eleven already cited in the article. Still not convinced? In the amount of time it takes you to log out so you can flame me with your IP rather than your handle, you could already have duplicated the search in question. Ender78 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Redirect to Fishsticks (South Park) as a plausible search term, and protect to prevent retargeting to Kanye West; see Fish dicks → Fishsticks (South Park), Manatee gag → Criticism of Family Guy, and Naggers → With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Spjayswal67 (talk · contribs) has worked on his userspace draft at User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava, rectifying the concerns at the AfD. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11, I asked him to withdraw the nomination so that he could make it fully compliant by adding inline citations to the article. After a couple days of hard work, the article is fully referenced, and I believe that it fulfills the requirements at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (persons). The newspaper clips posted here indicate that there is significant coverage about the subject, including this, this, this, etc. Move the userspace draft to Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, i would like this article to be reviewed. I believe there have been violations to the time and procedure of consensus reaching oriented work typical of Wikipedia. The article by itself suffers of a lot of problems. Is not notable, they are trying to make it notable by linking it to some yellow journalism websites. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reason given by deleter (housekeeping) was erroneous. This page was deleted as housekeeping, on the basis that there was no Imput page. In fact, there is such a page (and there was at the time of deletion). I asked the deleter on his talk page to undo the deletion; he replied on my talk page; I followed up back on his and he did not respond. I accept that the content of the talk page might have been minimal or useless, as he says, but that's not a reason for deleting a talk page. Matchups 04:27, 14 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Pederastic films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors Tonalone (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Rough consensus is not evident from the deletion discussion. We have a single delete vote from the nominator, and one keep vote, both supported with policy arguments. We have one comment from the article's author who should be counted as a strong keep and who edited the article to address some of the concerns that were brought up. In addition we have two comments that could be interpreted as deletes. The closing administrator claims that the article in its final form violated BLP without providing supporting arguments or evidence. Moving from procedural to substantive arguments: the article's subject is not notable for a single event, but for a singular skill; this skill has been documented by several reliable sources. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have a number of concerns about this deletion, both in terms of the substance of the arguments involved in the discussion and in terms of the process involved in closing it. I had asked User:Spartaz, who closed the debate, to review it, and Spartaz stands by his original decision. My concerns are as follows:
|
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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I did not even create that page. It was there for a long time, and I just added to it. Also, I was not banned when I edited it, and that was the only account I had. The instructions said to place the unblock thing on my talk page, but it didn't work. Devildevil1 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
References (reliable source) about Awards and other things including necessary newspaper cuttings
Here is a summery of reliable sources so it is requested here that please review it.Seemavibhaji (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) India Gandhi Priydarshini Award confer to Ambarish Srivastava. Award Cirtificate of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award confer to Ambarish Srivastava. Approval letter of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award. Letter with Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award. Award coverage thorough “Danik Jagran” daily newspaper dated Dec. 07 , 2004 on page no.-4. Award Coverage through “Rashtreey Sahara” daily newspaper dated Dec. 03, 2007 on page no. -2. Award coverage through “Hindustan” daily newspaper on dated December 04, 2007 on page no.-13. “Abhiyantran Shree” Honor. Certificate of “Abhiyantran Shree”. Honor Coverage of above honor through “Hindustan” daily newspaper dated Dec. 11, 2007 on page no.-5. Certificate of “Sarasvatee Ratn” Honor. Directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” Name of Ambarish Srivastava added in directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” on page 18 , line 1 to 8. Coverage about ‘Seminar on concrete road projects, by ‘Confederation of Indian Industry’under the ‘Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India. Ambarish Srivastava has actively participated in it with about two dozen architects of whole India and two hundred chief engineers of different government departments. Seemavibhaji (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"All India National Unity Conference" who who confer the "Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award". Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) As a poet the name of Ambarish Srivastava is also includeded directory of 'Rashtreey kavi sangam' Delhi India as per references which are shown as bellow. which proves that he is a notable poet. !Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Name of Ambarish Srivastava added in directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” on page 18 , line 1 to 8.Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) A link is also shown here about Ambarish Srivastava (As a writer)Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Ambarish Srivastava as a writer Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Poems of Ambarish Srivastava at 'Anubhuti' of UAE Website of Ambarish Srivastava Ambarish Srivastava in list of notable poets at sl no.-41 Introduction of Ambarish Srivastava on sahityashilpi Ambarish Srivastava at kavita section of Swargvibha where 21 poems of Ambarish Srivastava are published Seemavibhaji (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I've done a research and added several references that I believe are trusted and independent resources and left the comment on [[67]], but I'm not sure if my comment was noticed and the article was re-checked after my changes. If there's anything I else I can do to restore the article, please let me know. Thank you. J.D. (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The internet meme Pedobear has now gained notability in reliable sources, finally. The Telegraph. Some others can be found in Google News! Time for either an article, or a redirect to List of internet memes with a short note there.--Heyya91919 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010
|
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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I hear a lot about something called "Cricut" that's apparently popular in scrapbooking, so I decided to create an article for people to build on. I created a stub consisting of the sentence: "The Cricut Personal Electronic Cutter is a die-cutting machine used in scrapbooking." Someone immediately put a speedy-delete tag on it, which I contested, and then someone else deleted it. I don't see how my one sentence could be construed as "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". - Brian Kendig (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article for the band Five Dollar Refund was deleted unfairly, and should be brought back. They fit the requirements listed on wikipedia for a band to have a wiki page. 75.66.236.230 (talk · contribs). 15:59, 7 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
In January 2010 I made an attempt to write an article on the controversial webcomic Electric Retard on Wikipedia. Despite the fact that previous attempts by other users had been deleted, I had a go at writing the article because the webcomic's notability status seems to have increased over the last year or two, especially here in Australia. I've also noticed that while Electric Retard's notability status has been debated on by other Wikipedia editors, many other webcomic articles which are a lot less notable have not been challenged or removed. If they have to get the chop, why does Electric Retard have to? I have diplomatically discussed this matter with the Wikipedia user who removed the article. Hoping to hear a response soon. Cheers. LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article on the Crescent Tool Company founded in 1907 was deleted by User:Tbsdy lives for "[duplicating] an existing topic, Adjustable spanner." Following this logic, the article on Chevrolet should also be deleted for duplicating an existing topic, Car. It's not clear to me why this article was deleted without any discussion, since it wasn't obvious spam or a copyright violation, but I suppose it's not my site and the rules don't have to be sensible. The article I was "duplicating" was not even mentioned until the summary line in the deletion log, which, as you can imagine, is a bit too late to be constructive. typhoon (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This category was deleted because it was a recreation of a category that was previously deleted. It has been previously deleted four times: 1 2 3 and 4. There is a list that covers -gate constructions at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I want to bring this to deletion review because in all of the CFD discussions there was no mention of -gate constructions as a linguistic phenomenon (specifically snowclones). I think this category is most well understood and utilized in that context. There is precedent for categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech. Gobonobo T C 23:50, 6 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Currently doing post graduate research in Irish history and would like to see a temporary review of what this article contained. Just briefly. Many thanks Ian Pender (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This AfD went for roughly 6 days and 8 hours with extensive arguments made by very established editors. On the seventh day of the AfD, it was a unanimous "keep". However, the nominator, User:Niteshift36, withdrew the nomination at this late time. This closure would make sense if the closer/nom felt they erred in their nomination, but instead this appears to be a WP:POINT closure with the closer/nom simply not agreeing with the outcome and withdrawing it just before an administrator could close it, likely as a "Keep." An attempt to get a good faith explanation from the closer/nom ended with the nom feeling they didn't have to give an explanation. [87] (I wasn't "even involved" was apparently the reason.) This AfD should either be allowed to finish out the final 16 hours or closed with the designation Keep, but preferably the latter as any other close is unlikely.--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was recreated 7 months after the previous deletion being far better sourced than the orginal and in the opinion of the previously deleting admin "Looks fine to me; notability seems to be fairly clear now. The article that was deleted was pretty bad and didn't show any of the awards or coverage your new version does; so it doesn't surprise me it did get deleted - perhaps nobody with knowledge of the subject matter happened to notice the AfD. Nice work, anyway." (see diff). Though nobody else requested it, User:Viridae has chosen to speedy delete on the basis that the article was recreated and in his/her opinion must be deleted as it may fail WP:PORNBIO (see diff). This was the meat of the discussion that s/he has halted early, that the guidance of WP:PORNBIO is not an excuse to blindly delete, does not override the general notability criteria and this biographic article happens to pass WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST criteria. This is sufficient grounds for discussion in order to reach a consensus on the matter and that discussion has been halted less than half a day after the AfD was raised. I believe the article should be restored to enable a suitable consensus to be reached. It should be noted that similar articles for pornographic actors have been retained after consensus building discussion. The deletion discussion that terminated early is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (2nd nomination). Ash (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said. Article existence implies a claim to notability, not proof of notability. Again, where in WP:N does it say anything about an explicit claim to notability being required within the article's content? PS I know you must be pissed off because everyone thinks you made the wrong decision, and all, but try not to take it out on me with the whole "ridiculous" and "bullshit" stuff. It's getting on my nerves. Equazcion (talk) 02:18, 10 Feb 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page is far too broad, with no encyclopedic purpose. There was no legitimate reason given for it to be kept, but the discussion still wound up at "no consensus". There is no reliable source that defines the notability of a list of random vehicles from basically every work of fiction. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
First I have to say that I'm not sure if this is the correct page for my request. The article has been deleted by User:Cirt on the basis of non-notability. I've rewritten it in my user space (see User:Siechfred/Barad (band)) and think that the band passes WP:BAND. Their album was one of the top ten albums in Iran 2003 and they appeared on a Rough Guides sampler about the music of Iran. I think, that my draft can be moved to NS0. Siech•Fred Home 08:59, 3 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion was closed as keep despite the fact that there appeared to be no consensus and a small number of commenters. The discussion should have been relisted or at least closed as "no consensus" instead. User:Ruslik0 closed the AfD stating simply, "The result was Keep. Chicago Sun Times is a good source." After I inquired about the closure, Ruslik0 stated that the article was verifiable and the close was based on the strength of the keep arguments. However, the article was originally nominated on the basis of non-notablity, and the pro-deletion arguments were not weaker than the keep arguments. OCNative (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The outcome of the discussion was not clear. Also, music competitions are not prizes and do not fall into WP:OC#Award-winners. Karljoos (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&action=edit§ion=T-2
|
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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Since the AfD, the manga series has
|
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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Vid Belec is a young player of Italian Serie A club Inter, he's in the first team as you can see from the official Inter website, the article is definitely notable. Ekerazha (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Judicial Shamanism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Ok, so the same without remarks about the educational background: I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism was not factual. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, and did not provide any serious reason for deletion. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people: 1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139 2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html 3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris. 4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234 5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24 6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge. 7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra. 8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo. Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against. Dear The Hand That Feeds You, my point is not an appeal to authority. The admin who deleted the article ignored the 8 reliable sources that I gave without explaining why, according to him, they are not acceptable. Each my point is supported with a link. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hallo, I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism is completely uncompetent. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, but a student of English at a second-class American college who does not speak any foreign language. I would consider as an exprert only a lawyer who is familiar with postmodernism of law and with critical legal studies. In a normal world a student of English would never be considered as an expert on the subject. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people: 1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139 2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html 3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris. 4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234 5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24 6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge. 7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra. (The admin who deleted the article never heard about postmodernism). 8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo. Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against. Even more so - the article was previously undeleted but the admin ignored the previous discussion. Finally, I would like the admins to disclose their degree level. I hold a German PhD degree in postmodern jurisprudence. The admin who deleted the article is a college student of English who does not speak foreign languages. In a normal world our arguments would never be considered at the same level. The very right of such admins to delete articles shall be considered as vandalism. This is why the article shall be undeleted. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
(1) Main argument given for deletion, WP:CROSS, gives specific exception for intended use. Redirect was created in accordance to WP:namespace article: WP:namespace#pseudo-namespaces indicates "T:" as the correct shortcut. (2) Closing admin Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) says it was based on consensus. Vote that was based on 3 total votes 2 to 1. Not enough for consensus, relisting for more input in order, or no consensus. I also contend RfD should not be reduced to a vote in this instance. Related deleted pages are T:cite web, T:cite paper, and T:cite book. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment by DRV nominator: Everyone is saying it is a reasonable close but has not cited any WP article to support the claim. In addition to WP:Namespace and WP:CNR itself which literally interpreted prescribe and allow said shortcuts, close reading of WP:RfD#The guiding principles of RfD and WP:RfD#Keep would seem to indicate this closure as against the spirit of RfDs. RfDs are supposed to be a space of greater leniency than AfD or other deletion areas. WP:CSD#Redirects specifically R2 further supports my stand. If closure of this was proper I'm having difficulty understanding why Template: is explicitly mentioned there and AFD necessary and simply CSD not adopted. What would the exception be? From what I can tell general but undocumented practice at XfDs is the sole reason for endorsing this close even if it conflicts with a whole line of WP articles. This is a conflicting and schizophrenic state of affairs. 2 people in an obscure XfD misinterpreting or misrepresenting the contents of WP:CNR in this instance overturned consensus as stated in more than one WP article. As someone who has so far not generally hung out at XfDs except when articles I've directly worked on have been challenged I would like to call attention to the discrepancy between what is said in articles for the benefit of the general Wikipedian community and the actual practice at XfDs of specialists. Lambanog (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This AfD was closed as "no consensus" by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I believe there was a consensus to delete, largely because the arguments to keep were exceptionally weak and should have been ascribed less weight. The arguments for deletion were grounded in policy. The main argument to delete was the lack of evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources; those arguing to keep failed to refute this argument. One "keep" voter contended that third-party coverage was not necessary, an argument that conflicts with the guidelines at WP:N and WP:WAF. Another argument to keep was that sources might exist – an assertion that was not backed up with any evidence. The remainder of the arguments to keep were arguments to avoid, including WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BHTT, and WP:USEFUL. In contrast, votes for deletion were rooted in policies like WP:NOT and WP:V (in addition to the notability guideline). All things considered, the article should've been deleted; however, Kurykh stands by his close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |