AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Qi-Yo Multi-Yoga: COI |
67.84.106.227 (talk) →Shooting of Kimani Gray: new section |
||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
:We don't cancel a nomination for deletion because the person responsible for the article disagrees with it. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
:We don't cancel a nomination for deletion because the person responsible for the article disagrees with it. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:...Particularly if the person asking us to cancel the nomination has a conflict of interest in doing so. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qi-Yo_Multi-Yoga&action=history] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
:...Particularly if the person asking us to cancel the nomination has a conflict of interest in doing so. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qi-Yo_Multi-Yoga&action=history] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
== [[Shooting of Kimani Gray]] == |
|||
Can someone please complete the AfD for that article? Here is my rational for nominating it, thanks: |
|||
Not enough evidence of this shooting meeting [[WP:EVENT]]. While it did lead to four days of protest in Gray's neighborhood, after it subsided, practically all [[WP:PERSISTENCE|coverage]] of this shooting stopped completely. It only affected a [[WP:GEOSCOPE|small section]] of the city and had [[WP:LASTING|little to no impact]] on society. There is no high profile investigation or trial for the officers involved (like the [[Sean Bell shooting incident]]), no coverage of Gray's family filing a lawsuit or taking other judicial actions against the city (like the [[Shooting of Amadou Diallo]]), no references in any music, film, etc. (like the [[Death of Yusef Hawkins]]), and no national media frenzy (like [[Trayvon Martin]] or [[Rodney King]]). Those cases continued to receive coverage and discussion years after they happened. [[List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013]] already has an entry for this shooting that is sufficient enough to cover it. [[Special:Contributions/67.84.106.227|67.84.106.227]] ([[User talk:67.84.106.227|talk]]) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:57, 24 February 2014
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Problems with the logs
Using the javascript relisting tool, there seem to be issues. AfDs on the 13th-15th logs show a blank "old log" entry, while one AfD on the the 16th shows as the 18th's...while another has the "old log" entry reading "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago"...! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am getting the same with blank old-logs showing, so it won't relist... is there a new version of/new tool which I can use? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's something borked in the guts of the system, I think. And...it's doing it again. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sujit Meher
--Fashionburnstar (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Sujit_Meher this page has poorly sourced write up . May be deleted as it is low impotence and copy write infringement
- Hello Fashionburnstar, he does have a major write-up in The Telegraph, so I'd say there are many far worse articles on the English Wikipedia. If you see any problems or think there is a copyright violation, maybe you should raise it on the article's Talk page? Sionk (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Don Balfour (politician) BLP issues
I am not completely familiar with the Wikipedia policy, otherwise I would have AfD'ed it myself, but that page was clearly created for one purpose, to criticize the article's subject. It almost could meet a speedy delete for an attack page. I don't know if it qualifies for deletion, as he is probably notable, considering he has been a senator for 20+ years, but as it stands, it just one big criticism article. I looked at the history, and it seems as though 4 socks primarily wrote it, as all 4 usernames have zero contribs outside of the article. Does it qualify for a AfD or Speedy? Thanks, Brinkley32 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The closest is G10, but it's not completely right because that requires the article to be unsourced. The (actually 5) editors do seem a little suspicious, but given that they all have 1-4 edits on this page (if there's an admin about, correct me if there's something in deleted contribs), there's not enough evidence linking them to do anything. You can tag it under speedy if you want and see what the response is, but I personally would send it to AfD and see what people say there. Since the subject does meet WP:POLITICIAN, I'd mention the possibility of remaking the article as a NPOV stub after deletion. Ansh666 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, I was just checking if it met AfD at least. I haven't ever nominated anything, so I will go look up the guidelines later tonight or tomorrow. And yeah, there is only one source, which somehow got added 10 minutes after article was created, but a separate editor. The fact that a Georgia editor was online, happened to see a page created(w/o categories), recognize it as a Georgia-related article, go find and add the lone source all within 10 minutes of creation is a crazy coincidence. Not saying there isn't an explanation, but can't help but point that out. Thank you for your input and I will look into it soon. Brinkley32 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have stubbed the article down because there was undue weight to the one issue that he was acquitted on. I will look some more, but from what is in the article I do not believe he meets the notability guidelines. GB fan 13:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have gone back after looking more and started an AFD. GB fan 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Arsenal F.C. lists
I'm an unregistered user. Have added my thoughts as to why List of Arsenal F.C. hat-tricks should be deleted. 5.65.53.211 (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done nomination completed. GB fan 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
1st Feb page
Has something gone wrong with the 1st Feb page? I swear it had more than 3 nominations this time yesterday. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- My impression is that the structure has been broken by the addition of headings for Software and Internet. I'm not familiar with the standard structure myself and so will ask for assistance at ANI. Andrew (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Question about that- is the separation of things by Internet and Software going to become a permanent thing? I can somewhat see the method behind it, but I find it occasionally more disruptive than helpful because it sometimes keeps me from knowing what has been on the AfD page longest. Plus I thought that's what stuff like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet was for in the first place. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
MULTIAFD - "near the start"
The article re MULTIAFD says: "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion.[clarification needed]"
I propose clarifying by adding: "Near the start means after a maximum of two editor comments on the original nomination"
Thoughts?
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say "ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by SPAs, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith." My understanding is that if, say, the nom starts an AfD on one article, then goes back and reviews the creators other contribs, and finds a whole host of related articles, if he hurries up and adds them to the AfD, it should be fine even if someone happens to respond in that time. But the nom should not go and add more articles after there've been several responses, or a relist.
In short, I see it as a guideline that means don't add more articles later, but if nobody's said anything of consequence yet they can't go and cry foul for your adding more articles. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)- Agreed. It's the quality of comments that matters here, not quantity. 6an6sh6 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. any comments, questions, complaints, or suggestions about the new sig are welcome on my talk page.)
RfC announcement
Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Bundled AfD not showing up
Not sure if I muffed the code (quite possible as there will a million tags) but the discussion page for Constitution Party of Alabama doesn't seem to have made it onto the AdF roster for Feb 9 2014. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I know it's three days later, but wanted to note that this seems to have been sorted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The bilateral country articles
As per this AFD discussion here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Luxembourg relations), I am thinking more and more about a deletion review of all of these articles. I have no idea how extensive the deletion of bilateral articles has already been, so have no idea of how to proceed, or even if I want to be the torchbearer for this. I would like an AFD person to read over what both I and @LibStar: have written, and see if there is any merit to what I am saying. Thankyou in advance. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Having just read through the discussion on the AfD in question (and I am on the record as favoring deletion), I think what is being suggested here is to grant automatic notability to the relationships between nation states, even in cases where there isn't any to speak of. I strongly disagree with that suggestion. But setting aside my disagreement, this is ipso facto a proposal to alter existing WP:N guidelines. IMHO opinion this is not the right forum for that kind of discussion. I would suggest staring off by sending this to RFC as per WP:PROPOSAL. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:VPP may also be a good venue. 6an6sh6 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- OP, I'm more than happy for you to take your proposal forward to the community at the appropriate venue but I have to tell you in advance that I think that such a proposal would be a terrible idea. The general principle is usually that a specific type of subject can be considered notable even if it doesn't meet WP:GNG because it is otherwise notable for another reason. For example, an Olympian is general considered notable for having competed in the Olympics WP:NOLYMPICS because it is competition at the highest international level and being broadcast to that many countries would probably be considered significant coverage anyway. The proposal here seems to be that synthesised relationships (that is, a bunch of non-notable diplomatic events strung together to suggest some sort of notable inter-country relationship) should be considered inherently notable because such things are, to some people, interesting. That is, to be frank, not a very good idea and not at all consistent with WP guidelines or policy. Stalwart111 02:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- For something to be "automatically" notable would have to have strong consensus, particularly as you are giving these class of articles the highest type of notability. The fact that over 100 bilaterals have been deleted and many more ending with no consensus AfDs does not show a strong community consensus for automatic notability. I have gone through 100s of these bilateral articles, as Stalwart says many of them are based on factoids, or a one off meeting in 20 years of relations. If we are saying inherent notability, that gives a massive free pass to very small nations like Liechenstein and Andorra, and Tuvalu etc to get bilateral articles when there might be none or close to none. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- In the case of articles like Foreign relations of Tuvalu, these already list the countries with which the nation has a particularly notable relationship. In many cases, additional "x-y relations" articles are unnecessary content forks of those "foreign relations of x" articles already and editors have so-far even refrained from creating articles that might be about notable relationships (like Australia-Tuvalu relations for example). It transpired, during discussions last week, that nobody had thought to create Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations but Embassy of Afghanistan, London did exist to provide coverage of a thoroughly non-notable building. My point is that there are a great many articles that could be created, many of which would be justified. But there are also a great many that have been created that don't meet our inclusion criteria (some of which have been deleted) and a great many more that shouldn't be created or recreated. Let's encourage editors to create those articles that should exist before encouraging them to create articles that shouldn't. Ever. Stalwart111 05:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I totally agree, there are 100s of notable bilateral combinations that have not been created yet those on a spur of creation seem to concentrate on one country. as an example, one editor is actively creating everything Bangladesh-X and inserting factoids of one off business meeting where they promised to trade more. and the text that Bangladesh items such as clothing (one of its main exports) is considered possible for import to country X. I found other editor creating one line bilateral articles and never touching them again. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- In the case of articles like Foreign relations of Tuvalu, these already list the countries with which the nation has a particularly notable relationship. In many cases, additional "x-y relations" articles are unnecessary content forks of those "foreign relations of x" articles already and editors have so-far even refrained from creating articles that might be about notable relationships (like Australia-Tuvalu relations for example). It transpired, during discussions last week, that nobody had thought to create Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations but Embassy of Afghanistan, London did exist to provide coverage of a thoroughly non-notable building. My point is that there are a great many articles that could be created, many of which would be justified. But there are also a great many that have been created that don't meet our inclusion criteria (some of which have been deleted) and a great many more that shouldn't be created or recreated. Let's encourage editors to create those articles that should exist before encouraging them to create articles that shouldn't. Ever. Stalwart111 05:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- For something to be "automatically" notable would have to have strong consensus, particularly as you are giving these class of articles the highest type of notability. The fact that over 100 bilaterals have been deleted and many more ending with no consensus AfDs does not show a strong community consensus for automatic notability. I have gone through 100s of these bilateral articles, as Stalwart says many of them are based on factoids, or a one off meeting in 20 years of relations. If we are saying inherent notability, that gives a massive free pass to very small nations like Liechenstein and Andorra, and Tuvalu etc to get bilateral articles when there might be none or close to none. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have supported the notability of almost all of these articles in the past, but some of the relationships are not really notable either by the GNG or in any real sense, such as the relationship of a small country in one part of a word with a small country in another when there is no particular reason otherwise, . The merit for this is otherwise: it's to accept the articles on the basis of not paper and little chance for anything harmful , simply as a device to avoid the inconclusive and contradictory discussions. This is an important merit. We might as well make use of our capacity for being not paper. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- a week later, coin945 has established no general support for his/her belief of inherent notability of bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- For what is worth, I support Coin945 arguments completely and wholeheartedly. As I said in the course of these years, I find LibStar efforts in destroying such articles extremly disruptive for the encyclopedia. As Coin945 stated, this has intrinsic encyclopedic merit, and it is a case where article non-existence is misleading:
Silence equals vagueness and misinformation. I would rather be told a straight up "X and Y have little to no bilateral relationship to speak of" than be kept in the dark (and unable to locate any article with any information on the topic) due to not being able to find conclusive evidence to support wither side of the coin.
. I know that "intrinsic notability" is seen as a profanity in many circles in WP, yet I think this is one of the most clear-cut cases where such a concept is needed. If the existence of whole articles on weak relations is frowned upon, at least lists of such relations should exist. Something Minor foreign relations of Italy, so to say.--cyclopiaspeak! 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- "LibStar efforts in destroying such articles extremly disruptive for the encyclopedia" how is it disruptive, who is this disrupting? we use community consensus to determine notability. I am concerned about the very minor relations articles that have been spawned that could easily be covered in 2 lines in a foreign relations article. Having said that many combinations are indeed notable, and a lot have not been created, in fact I've created some myself. Those often arguing for keep in AfDs fails to provide coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cyclopia, obviously i am extremely disruptive if I've created these following notable articles:
- "LibStar efforts in destroying such articles extremly disruptive for the encyclopedia" how is it disruptive, who is this disrupting? we use community consensus to determine notability. I am concerned about the very minor relations articles that have been spawned that could easily be covered in 2 lines in a foreign relations article. Having said that many combinations are indeed notable, and a lot have not been created, in fact I've created some myself. Those often arguing for keep in AfDs fails to provide coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•Australia–Solomon Islands relations •China–Maldives relations •Japan–Laos relations •Brazil–Spain relations •Mauritius–South Africa relations •Jamaica–Trinidad and Tobago relations •Finland–Latvia relations •Chile–Spain relations •Canada–Iceland relations •Albania–China relations •Germany–South Africa relations •Australia–Singapore relations •Australia–Germany relations •Lithuania–Sweden relations •Botswana–South Africa relations •Belgium–France relations •Australia–Tonga relations •Iceland–Norway relations •East Timor–Portugal relations •France–Venezuela relations •Sudan–United Kingdom relations •Finland–Nicaragua relations •Japan–Nepal relations •Bahrain–United Kingdom relations •Brazil–Denmark relations •Mozambique–Portugal relations •Cambodia–Japan relations •Australia–Thailand relations •Australia–South Africa relations •Australia–Philippines relations •Australia–Brazil relations LibStar (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is disruptive for the reasons mentioned above. And that you also built content, while excellent, doesn't change the fact that, in my humble opinion, removal of bilateral articles is extremly detrimental to users and the mission of WP and, as such, disruptive. --cyclopiaspeak! 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- how is it extremely detrimental? all the deleted bilaterals contained little more than confirmation of diplomatic recognition. most of those countries have never had their leaders meet, never signed one agreement. WP is not a repository for every fact. the foreign relations articles series is a good way to contain info on bilaterals with minimal relations. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- and how is an article on say Nepal-Liechenstein at all encyclopaedic to WP. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
My problem with articles about non-existent relations between certain countries is that, in the mad scramble to fabricate notability, we're getting misleading crap that isn't even about the (nonexistent) topic. Statements from business organizations unaffiliated with the governments of either country do not indicate relations between those two countries. A musician from country X performing a concert in country Y is not an example of X-Y relations. Things Ban Ki-Moon does in his capacity as head of the UN do not count as South Korea-Anything relations. Reyk YO! 00:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- as Reyk says i think it is extremely detrimental to have articles built on synthesis based on no actual interaction between the government of 2 countries. I've seen the following added to bilaterals: sporting results or an incident of a criminal of a certain nationality being arrested in another country for robbery, the flags of the 2 countries being displayed together (amongst 10 flags) in an Antarctic base. desperate attempts to establish notability on trivial coverage is detrimental to WP. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- In response to LibStar's and Reyk's valid concern about these pages on non-notable relationships being filled with trivial and unaffiliated nonsense, I would like to point out that if it is explicitly stated that the article's existence is not due its notability in and of itself, but rather for the completeness of a larger notable topic (bilateral relationships), then even the non-notability of this particular relationship is notable in the broader context of such relationships. I would personally be intrigued by the types of country duos that don't really have relationships - if there are any patterns for example. So long story short, my point is that the article creators won't feel the need to fill them with rubbish in a desperate bid to meet notability criteria. I think a simple acknowledgement of the lack of bilateral relationships is perfectly fine.--Coin945 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for your thoughts, Coin945. I think this relates if we ever were to have agreed notability criteria for bilaterals. I think an attempt must started years ago but never successul. generally speaking the smaller countries do not have notable relations with other smaller countries particularly on other continents. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- In response to LibStar's and Reyk's valid concern about these pages on non-notable relationships being filled with trivial and unaffiliated nonsense, I would like to point out that if it is explicitly stated that the article's existence is not due its notability in and of itself, but rather for the completeness of a larger notable topic (bilateral relationships), then even the non-notability of this particular relationship is notable in the broader context of such relationships. I would personally be intrigued by the types of country duos that don't really have relationships - if there are any patterns for example. So long story short, my point is that the article creators won't feel the need to fill them with rubbish in a desperate bid to meet notability criteria. I think a simple acknowledgement of the lack of bilateral relationships is perfectly fine.--Coin945 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
all the deleted bilaterals contained little more than confirmation of diplomatic recognition. most of those countries have never had their leaders meet, never signed one agreement.
- Yep. And how am I supposed to know that? The absence of an article does not mean that automatically the relationship is minimal to none. It is simply a void. You ask how is an article on say Nepal-Liechenstein at all encyclopaedic
. It is because it answers the question "what are the relationships between Nepal and Liechtenstein?", even if the answer is "There are none". In this context, "there are none" is exactly the encyclopedic and relevant information that answers the question. No article means that there is no answer. Since bilateral relations are not indiscriminately open-ended, they are a limited and well defined matrix of relations, and since all of these relations are of encyclopedic interest (remember to avoid systemic bias: we may find Nepal-Liecthenstein relationships irrelevant, but for sure Nepalese and/or Lietchtenstein people don't agree), we ought to cover that. Inclusion of such information is also consistent with WP:5P pillar number one, as a gazeteer-like information. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- those combinations with minimal relations are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles. This has been established practice in years in lieu of stubs of non notable country pairs. We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles
. Fine for me, if such information is preserved. Can we at least establish the appropriate redirects, then?We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met.
- It's not merely useful, it's encyclopedically useful, as per our first pillar. Merely being useful is not an argument (cookie recipes are useful but not meant to be in an encyclopedia), but an encyclopedia should also take into account its usefulness for readers, otherwise Wikipedia becomes an exercise in collective intellectual masturbation. Notability is a guideline/set of guidelines, meant to be followed with the occasional exception; WP:5P is our most fundamental policy. --cyclopiaspeak! 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- those combinations with minimal relations are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles. This has been established practice in years in lieu of stubs of non notable country pairs. We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Mike Bannister
I question the notability of this biography/profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bannister
Reasons include: - not notable beyond his piloting of the Concorde fleet; the pertinent information could easily exist in a more concise form on the Concorde entry - last two paragraphs (more than half of the article's length in words) reads as self-promotion and is unverifiable
tl;dr: not particularly notable & possibly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.52 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bannister. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
User trying to delete nomination
Hello, the article Tommy Oliver was nominated for deletion, but a user is trying to get the discussion deleted in an obvious attempt to stop the nomination. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- On the face of it, this seems a valid complaint. As is evident at User talk:Ryulong#Tommy Oliver, the removal was based on a preemptive assumption of bad faith. The AfD nomination may be malformed, but that is no reason to dismiss it - and I think the grounds given for nomination (if reworded in Wikipedia terms) are at least arguable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- The request was malformed and originally requested by a user whose first edit was to revert me on a related article, an action taken by sockpuppets of a banned user who began harassing me in the past. Tommy Oliver may be a page that needs work or merging to some other article that doesn't exist yet but this improper AFD is not going to solve that. There's no point in wasting the community's time because a banned user may or may not have a valid complaint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, to be honest, this request is not "malformed" - IP editors cannot create WP space pages as is typically required for AfD. While the IP does have some very suspicious activity (improperly closing a different AfD and edit-warring to keep it closed), that does not diminish the validity of this AfD. 6an6sh6 08:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- It kind of does invalidate this attempted AFD. And as I said on my talk page, I'd gladly work on making the article better or just a redirect to a more valid list article that's going to be a pain in the ass to produce, rather than waste the communitys' time trying to figure out what to do with an AFD started by a banned user's sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Face it. Your "duck test" suspicion are unjustified. I remove an episode listing because there were no official sources, not because of you. You seem to take it personally. The fact the someone else would nominate shows that you need to start playing fair. 174.236.68.115 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to note that the IP in question reverted my edits on one article to a version that was full of malformed edits performed by another editor, as well as posted this somewhat trollish edit summary. It frankly does not matter if the debate might have merit, due to the suspicious actions by the IPs and their questionable past usage by multiple banned editors (most recently Colton Cosmic). I find it suspicious that a new editor would find my edits to that episode list and then decide to list one of the most recent similar articles I had a hand in editing for deletion other than someone trying to get my goat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- After reading this discussion, I've created the deletion nomination in the correct place. AS92813 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @AS92813: Umm, although you've created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tommy_Oliver you don't seem to have left anything on Tommy Oliver to link to it. PamD 23:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done. AS92813 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- AS92813 appears to be a sleeper sockpuppet in this whole affair. My labeling of these IPs as Dragonron was incorrect, but it appears this is either Don't Feed the Zords or BuickCenturyDriver (who are probably the same person).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done. AS92813 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- @AS92813: Umm, although you've created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tommy_Oliver you don't seem to have left anything on Tommy Oliver to link to it. PamD 23:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- After reading this discussion, I've created the deletion nomination in the correct place. AS92813 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to note that the IP in question reverted my edits on one article to a version that was full of malformed edits performed by another editor, as well as posted this somewhat trollish edit summary. It frankly does not matter if the debate might have merit, due to the suspicious actions by the IPs and their questionable past usage by multiple banned editors (most recently Colton Cosmic). I find it suspicious that a new editor would find my edits to that episode list and then decide to list one of the most recent similar articles I had a hand in editing for deletion other than someone trying to get my goat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Face it. Your "duck test" suspicion are unjustified. I remove an episode listing because there were no official sources, not because of you. You seem to take it personally. The fact the someone else would nominate shows that you need to start playing fair. 174.236.68.115 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- It kind of does invalidate this attempted AFD. And as I said on my talk page, I'd gladly work on making the article better or just a redirect to a more valid list article that's going to be a pain in the ass to produce, rather than waste the communitys' time trying to figure out what to do with an AFD started by a banned user's sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, to be honest, this request is not "malformed" - IP editors cannot create WP space pages as is typically required for AfD. While the IP does have some very suspicious activity (improperly closing a different AfD and edit-warring to keep it closed), that does not diminish the validity of this AfD. 6an6sh6 08:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- The request was malformed and originally requested by a user whose first edit was to revert me on a related article, an action taken by sockpuppets of a banned user who began harassing me in the past. Tommy Oliver may be a page that needs work or merging to some other article that doesn't exist yet but this improper AFD is not going to solve that. There's no point in wasting the community's time because a banned user may or may not have a valid complaint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Joseph Minala article
An article I created the other day has been nominated for deletion, as it stands the Joseph Minala article has been viewed over 60,000 times in two days. However the problem is, he hasn't played a first team game but has been in international media having been accused of age fraud. It seems silly for the article to be deleted when it's currently one of the most visited. What options are available to save the article ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only option I can see is to convince those participating in the AfD, via reliable sources, that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Page view statistics evidently caused by a single event that wouldn't in itself establish enduring notability aren't amongst the notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
MULTIAFD again
I had an tough time yesterday after using MULTIAFD in a way that people felt it wasn't built for, but on the bright side I received some constructive if aggressive feedback from a variety of knowledgable editors (User:Colapeninsula, User:AndyTheGrump and User:PBS).
To avoid others making the same mistake in future, I suggest adding a sentence into WP:MULTIAFD such as:
- For the avoidance of doubt, MULTIAFD should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy."
Grateful for any comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think the existing guidelines cover the case: bundling should only be used for articles which are likely to be deleted unproblematically: "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled". If there's already debate about something, with people arguing keep, or a legitimate debate over policy, that indicates it probably shouldn't be bundled. But if it's felt necessary to add explanation, I wouldn't oppose. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I read that wording five times, on different days, and I still decided to go ahead with the bundling as it felt like a good way to get consensus across articles. Perhaps I am an idiot and can't read between the lines properly, but i'm probably not the only one out there. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Aaron Quick Nelson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Quick_Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I've went online to search to get information on a actor that I saw that was interested to know about because he was so brilliant in a independent film I was watching. And wasn't surprised to see a Wikipedia on him but once I went into his article I couldn't help but see the box message above him information. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film and television actor. The information that is shown in the article is clear and is has external links that describes him. The imdb site that is linked to the actor's Information on the article is an online database of information related to films, television programs and video games, taking in actors, production crew, biographies, plot summaries and trivia. In order for anyone to be listed on that site is by being in a motion picture, independent movie, directed, screen writing or more. Before anyone gets listed on this site, the site goes through an approval through extensive research. If the actor information meets their guidelines. It is approved. You should keep this actor's article up. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film actor. Thank you.
Simeon Rice. February 20th. 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi-Yo_Multi-Yoga. Currently, there is one editor who thinks the page should be deleted, but I think it just needs to be tagged with the notability tag and not deleted. We are obviously at disagreement and I think other editors should weigh in and give opinions on how the page can be improved, but I'm not sure how to ask other editors to do this. Thank you.Jheditorials (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- We don't cancel a nomination for deletion because the person responsible for the article disagrees with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- ...Particularly if the person asking us to cancel the nomination has a conflict of interest in doing so. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the AfD for that article? Here is my rational for nominating it, thanks:
Not enough evidence of this shooting meeting WP:EVENT. While it did lead to four days of protest in Gray's neighborhood, after it subsided, practically all coverage of this shooting stopped completely. It only affected a small section of the city and had little to no impact on society. There is no high profile investigation or trial for the officers involved (like the Sean Bell shooting incident), no coverage of Gray's family filing a lawsuit or taking other judicial actions against the city (like the Shooting of Amadou Diallo), no references in any music, film, etc. (like the Death of Yusef Hawkins), and no national media frenzy (like Trayvon Martin or Rodney King). Those cases continued to receive coverage and discussion years after they happened. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013 already has an entry for this shooting that is sufficient enough to cover it. 67.84.106.227 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)