Deletion discussions |
---|
![]() |
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
|
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
|
Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Contents
Purpose
Deletion Review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion Review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
- when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
- to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
- please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Commenting in a deletion review
In the deletion review discussion, please:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
5. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use |
Active discussions
25 February 2014
24 February 2014
Carl Freer
- Carl Freer (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I am requesting that the closure of the discussion for the deletion of article Carl Freer from December 2013 be overturned and allowed to run for a better consensus to be reached in the discussion. I have previously discussed this with the closing administrator who advised that I come here.
The page was recommended for deletion in December 2013. I made the recommendation as the article is a BLP that appears to be an attack page. The subject of the article is mentioned as being involved in a failed business and also lists alleged criminal activity. Although I have made edits to the page in an attempt to make it more neutral, I still feel that the only notability for the subject would fall under WP:CRIME, and that he falls way short of that guideline. While WP:GNG could be considered, there is not substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. There are 2 articles that seem to meet reliable source guidelines, but being accused of fraud and having 2 articles about it wouldn’t really meet notability. Assuming this person came out and admitted that they did everything stated in the article, I still do not believe in my opinion that he would meet notability guidelines.
That aside, after recommending the article for deletion, I see that it was previously recommended for deletion in May 2008 with the result of the discussion as no consensus. A link to that discussion can be found here. After reading that discussion, I see that there are neutral point of view issues with this BLP all the way back then. The talk page also shows a good history of such.
The deletion discussion from 2013 which can be found here was originally relisted after 10 days as there were no votes. Then on the 2rd of January, a keep vote was provided by User:Universaladdress. This user has a history of pushing a negative agenda on the page which I will not detail here but you can see on the talk page and edit history. Then, there were two keep votes with one stating “I came to Wikipedia to look the guy up” and another that states “per Universaladdress.” Neither would be rationale for keeping the article and the first vote was from a user whose only contribution was to the deletion discussion. Another keep vote followed by a user who stated “as the two above me have given no reason at all for Keep I will……It is within the criterias for WP:GNG.
This article is attached to three other articles which appear to be used as attack pages. The first is Tiger Telematics which was the parent company to a video game (the second article) called Gizmondo. The third page is for Stefan Eriksson who was also a board member of Tiger Telematics.
I planned to leave additional rationale or request additional information from users about their rationale; however, the discussion was closed as keep a day after the final vote was made. So, the first 7 days there was no discussion at all. It was relisted on the 31st and closed on the 4th with only 5 days of discussion, and a day after 4 keep votes came back to back to back. When I logged in to leave a comment, I saw that it was closed.
I have asked for a review from the BLP noticeboard and there was 1 editor who stated that they agreed with some edits made to the article. However, there was no other discussion on the noticeboard about the BLP violation that I believe the article is. I also made a request on the neutral noticeboard with no one responding to that request.
As much as I respect the process of deletion closure, I feel that the consensus of the deletion discussion was not interpreted properly as that was not enough reasoning other than votes (2 without rationale, 1 with a wrong interpretation of WP:CRIME, and 1 that would count even though I don’t agree with). I realize that just because I disagree with the rationale in the discussion does not mean that this could be overturned. I would ask that it be reopened for discussion as I feel that there was not enough information for the closer to make an appropriate clear keep decision of the article.
I would ask in the least that the article be reopened for additional discussion in order to reach a more clear consensus. I apologize for such a long writing but wanted to make sure that I provided as much information as possible. I also apologize if I am in the wrong place to request this be done. If I am, please kindly point me to the correct board where I can make this request.--JakenBox (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're in the right place, but I think the consensus in the discussion was clear, and in my view it was based on policy. Our BLP rules say we're to remove unsourced negative material about living people. They don't say we should delete articles about living people. They don't say we should remove well-sourced negative material about living people.
We also have a rule about attack pages, which is at WP:G10. Among other things, G10 empowers our sysops to delete unsourced pages that disparage their subject. This page does disparage its subject, but it's well-sourced. I think this guy deserves his Wikipedia biography, and I'm not minded to protect him. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse I tend to agree with Marshall. It seems that the sources are accurate and therefore worthy of inclusion. If anyone could provide reasoning behind the sources being invalid, unreliable, or otherwise just not worthy I'd consider it further of course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Corey Parchman
- Corey Parchman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closed too soon--consensus not yet established. The discussion was relisted and then closed without additional comment less than 12 hours after relisted with both Keep and Delete positions in active discussion. Asked closing editor to reconsider here. All I'm asking is for the AFD relisting to run its course. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's an interesting one. I saw this earlier when I was looking at AfD and raised an eyebrow; far as I can see the sequence of events was that Slakr relisted it and then Daniel deleted it. It's unusual, but as far as I can see, not actually irregular. I can see no evidence that Daniel is aware of this issue as yet, so I'd like to reserve my position until Daniel has had a chance to consider what you say on his talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there was any bad faith involved on the part of User:Daniel, I just think it was procedurally incorrect. Something I've been guilty of many times myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Security Industry Specialists
- Security Industry Specialists (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Hello, I would like to have the page Security Industry Specialists un-deleted. I created a minimal page to start with due to limited time, but C Fred killed the page before it had a chance to develop. SIS Inc. is a company that has been the subject of news coverage for its allegedly anti-union stance and its treatment of employees. Solarlive (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note that I have not undeleted this because the content was solely a controversy section without any inline citations. Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not hard to find sources that talk about Security Industry Specialists' treatment of its employees. Quite a lot of sources. What strikes me pretty clearly, though, is that they're not sources about Security Industry Specialists. They're sources about Security Industry Specialists' attitude to its staff. It's going to be an intensely political topic, and a controversial one. In short, difficult. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's processes don't handle difficult subjects very well. Our processes try to produce simple outcomes, and I'm afraid that what we often get are simplistic outcomes.
The simplistic outcome we're looking at here is really bureaucratic and unhelpful. At a technical level, C.Fred was correct to delete this as an A7 because the narrow, simplistic definition of A7 was met. So the correct outcome is "endorse". Whoopie doo, go DRV! Another triumph of helpfulness for our content creators!
But I think we can do better than that. After thinking about this, I feel that what the sources are really about is the Service Employees International Union's campaign against Security Industry Specialists. Looking on SIS's website, I find they've got a whole page whining about how the unions are persecuting them, which is pretty good evidence that there's something going on that Wikipedia ought to cover. But SIS are not their employment policies, and they're not their labour relations problems, so we've got to find the right title for the article and it isn't Security Industry Specialists. Any article with the title Security Industry Specialists that actually reflects the sources would be hopelessly POV, because it would be about labour relations and not Security Industry Specialists. No compliant article can exist with that name.
I'd be tempted to begin with a subheading under Service Employees International Union. We'd need to set up a redirect from Security Industry Specialists to the subheading, on the basis that Security Industry Specialists is a likely search term for someone looking for the controversy.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
23 February 2014
John Schlossberg
- John Schlossberg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Almost all of the deletes voters made the irrelevant case that he got coverage because he was related to someone. Whether or not he'd get as much attention if he didn't have famous family members, is not relevant. The person clearly passes the general notability guidelines for the significant coverage they got in reliable sources about themselves and their activities. This was previously at deletion review for the same reason [1]. Today (U.S. TV program) has a piece on him(watch the video for significant coverage). [2] He has also been given ample coverage in the New York Post [3] and other newspapers. [4] So it isn't just about his family. Recently he even got coverage for an idiotic hoax about him. [5] I tried to discuss this with the closing administrator at [6] Dream Focus 19:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- To add in support of DreamFocus.. most of the Delete votes are premised on the essay WP:INHERIT ("He's only notable as a Kennedy"). INHERIT is often treated as a rule, but it's actually an essay. When there's a contested case like this and GNG sources exist, the essay probably shouldn't overrule the guideline. -- GreenC 20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse- the debate really could not have been closed any other way, as consensus was clear. The community has the right, as a matter of editorial discretion, to decide to delete an article based on any argument they find convincing- whether it's a guideline, policy, essay, or even something scrawled on the back of a napkin. Clearly people felt that applying the exact wording of the GNG would lead to an unsatisfactory conclusion in this case and there is nothing wrong with that, because our policies and guidelines are descriptive of what's done in practice. They do not lock us into prescribed actions. Reyk YO! 00:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I did this for the earlier DR, and I'm doing it again. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn Given that everybody will decide this on their own feeling for what WP ought to contain, and whether being a celebrity figure, or related to one, is sufficient for notability, there is no consensus in either direction. I predict we will be discussing this at annual intervals, and the results will be random, depending on who joins the discussion--though I suppose they will move towards consistently delete if people start taking a very _serious_ view of our purpose. I don't see that we should-- , we should try to avoid a feeling of self-oimportance. I could equally well have argued in the other direction--I cannot realy permanently convince myself either way. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment While strongly agreeing with Reyk that we can agree to delete articles even when the criteria in the notability guidelines have been met (and vice versa), I am not at all sure that the AFD discussion led to any such consensus. Would not "no consensus" have been a better summary? Thincat (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is a stupid article that touches on two more important issues. First, what notability is and what it's for. Notability has bugger all to do with the subject's accomplishments (which is why Prince George of Cambridge has an article). It's simply about the coverage the subject has generated in reliable sources. Second, the current content of the article is irrelevant to AfD! If it's fixable then AfD should be deciding to fix it. Absent copyvios, major BLP issues etc, the only basis on which AfD should normally be deleting material is because it's unfixable, i.e. the sources don't exist. Roy Smith's closing statement appears to focus on the current content of the article instead of its potential content, and it appears to confuse the subject's accomplishments with his notability. In my view the close was not within discretion, and I would overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse, DRV is not a place to have a second bite of the cherry. Consensus was quite clear in the discussion, and no good reason has been offered to overrule that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
- Endorse. The problem with having an article on him is not the fact that sources went in depth on him, but how they don't indicate what he is notable for- only his ambitions. If they mentioned what he is known for, be it socialite, author, politician, physician, or something, then it would be better to keep. Being a college student and part of Yale's journalism section isn't notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn. GNG is the north star, and essays don't trump them. We have guidelines for a purpose, and this is one -- so non-consensus essay views don't trump consensus project views.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn Wide coverage of the subject in reliable sources makes it pass the GNG by a considerable margin. ► Philg88 ◄
talk 17:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse - Notability is not inherited, this person has not done a single thing noteworthy in his own right. This had no adequate rebuttal, so the strength of argument was assessed properly by the closing admin. As always, absent a clear case of error or misjudgment, one does not get to substitute their own point-of-view for the closer's. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
List of film accents considered the worst
- List of film accents considered the worst (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WP:LC,WP:NOR This may seem like a small matter, but I assure you... it is a fight for the very soul of Wikipedia. I fear that in our efforts to be collegial and generous of spirit, we've habituated ourselves to some pretty bad stuff. If this isn't listcruf, then the notion of listcruf is -dead-. And friends, that’s a problem.
"Keep" argument 1: The list is "harmless." Wrong. Articles that aren’t deleted right away have a tendency to infect substantive ones via links. Keeping articles that otherwise shouldn’t exist on the grounds that they’re “harmless” is a good way to ensure they eventually cause harm.
“Keep” argument 2: It cites notable sources/good content. Ok. Dave Kehr at the Chicago Reader wrote a negative review of Apocalypse Now. Kehr is a professional film reviewer and the Reader is a notable source. So now I get to create a list called "Films considered the worst" and include Apocalypse Now.
My point here is that websites exist that use statistical modeling to aggregate opinions of movie reviews, but I doubt any such analysis of movie critics' opinions of actors' accents exists. In which case, this is original research. Empirically aggregating opinions is a very difficult thing to do. A few movie critics saying the accents in a movie are bad in no way constitutes reviewers' consensus or opinions in aggregate. Atlantictire (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close was well supported by the discussion and well explained by the closing administrator; ample evidence that it's a notable topic. "No consensus" might have been an alternative, but the end result is the same. We don't need to destroy the village in order to save it: discussions have already started at the talk page about refocusing the article to discuss the topic of movie accents in a more general fashion, using the sources already produced; a much better use of editorial resources than setting this on fire. -- Arxiloxo(talk) 04:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment How is this "destroying the village?" I think I addressed why the admin's rational for keeping it was faulty. You've said it was sound but have provided no justification. Explain.
Arxiloxos voted "keep" in the original deletion discussion. It should also be noted that one of the most adamant advocates of keeping the list changed his mind in favor of deleting it.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) - Thank you to Roy Smith; I found the closing statement clear, complete, and helpful. I see there's a constructive discussion going on on Talk:List of film accents considered the worst, which looks likely to lead to an intelligent solution and I think that discussion should be allowed to continue. To be candid, I do think this is a really crap idea for a list. I see that there are sources, but I feel that the fact that there are sources doesn't in itself make this a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. If I had participated in the debate I would have said "delete".
At a technical DRV level, I think the correct close would have been "no consensus to delete" rather than "keep". Historically, DRV has been reluctant to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" on the basis that it's an overturn with no practical effect. I shouldn't think we can get to a "delete" outcome from here, but DRV's decisions have been getting weirder of late so I suppose it's possible; if that does happen, then would the closer please note that it's important not to delete the list's talk page until the discussion there is complete.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse - while I probably would have closed the discussion as 'no consensus defaulting to delete', the close was well within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, but when is something outside admin discretion? Is that what this is about... admin discretion? Not whether terrible, unjustifiable decisions are being made and terrible precedents being set? Maybe I'll go make a List of books considered the worst, including everything for which I find 2 or 3 negative reviews by professional critics. I'll argue that it's harmless and I have reliable sources. Atlantictire (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment from the AfD closer. I agree with those who suggest that no consensus might have been a better close than keep, but at this point, it seems like a meaningless distinction. I also agree with those who suggest that effort put into arguing process would benefit the encyclopedia more if it were put into fixing up bad articles (which this one certainly is). I also agree that this is a horrible title for an article, but that wasn't discussed in the AfD comments and I didn't want to go there in my close. In any case, thank you to everybody for your feedback (seriously). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- List of house pets considered the worst. Seriously, what's to stop me from creating this?--Atlantictire (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- It would still be a better idea than an article on sexuality in Star Trek.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- endorse It is not good for people to take themselves too seriously. for a project like WP, it's even a little ludicrous. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse and then we can continue to peruse this ridiculous article. I sympathise with the closer in trying to maintain decorum. BTW "it is a fight for the very soul of Wikipedia" seems hyperbolic. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral, I'd have closed it as no consensus had I not been involved in the discussion, but overturning "Keep" to "No Consensus" is just silly policy wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. Even having !voted Delete, I don't see how this could have been closed as Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
- Well that's it then. Better to "maintain decorum" then have any kind of standards. May as well create a sockpuppet account that comes here to socialize, write garbage lists and vote "keep" on everything. Look for lots and lots of "considered the worst" lists, guys. Good job!--Atlantictire (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- But our standards are decided by community consensus. A list, like any article, is compiled from disparate sources and the community has to decide what is disallowed by WP:SYNTH. Different people can quite legitimately have different opinions. Regarding WP:NOR, the article has the stance of reporting critics' opinions, not the accents of actors, and the article's supporters consider these opinions have been reliably sourced. Why the critics' opinions are of any interest is beyond me – but then lots of other topics are of no interest to me either. Thincat (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I preferred Wikipedia when the admins were highly intelligent, had exacting standards, and insisted that the place wasn't a democracy. They weren't shy about deleting things either.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- But our standards are decided by community consensus. A list, like any article, is compiled from disparate sources and the community has to decide what is disallowed by WP:SYNTH. Different people can quite legitimately have different opinions. Regarding WP:NOR, the article has the stance of reporting critics' opinions, not the accents of actors, and the article's supporters consider these opinions have been reliably sourced. Why the critics' opinions are of any interest is beyond me – but then lots of other topics are of no interest to me either. Thincat (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
22 February 2014
Leslie Cornfeld
- Leslie Cornfeld (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a résumé. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then contacted me, and I said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions. User NinaSpezz (talk · contribs), acting with a declared COI as a representative of Ms Cornfeld, supplied a number of references, and has provided a rewritten draft on the talk page. I have tweaked it slightly and moved it to Draft:Leslie Cornfeld. I think it is now good enough for the mainspace, and bring it here for review before restoring it. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing sources that provide substantial coverage of this subject or really any assertion of notability that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Which achievements and which sources do you think establish notability? The article also needs to provide context in the opening paragraph. Not all our readers are NYers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Restore, that's not an unreasonable request at all.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
21 February 2014
Antrim Forum
- Antrim Forum (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
its an Olympic style training facility with references and a picture and everything Evangp (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm simply astonished
- Evangp (talk · contribs) has created a large number of venue stubs, and Antrim Forum appears to be typical. These venues are, I think, reasonable content for a collection of all human information, but individually they sit ill with our guidelines on whether individual topics belong on stand alone articles. I suggest that Evangp might work on a more generic modern theatrical venues, and produce a merge target should this astonishment proceed to grief at the hands of (policy adhering) deletionists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse - the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse - astonished or not, consensus was interpreted correctly. Your disagreement is with the people who supported deletion, not with the admin who closed the discussion. Stalwart111 14:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse - The closer appropriately assessed the consensus that emerged from the deletion discussion and no evidence has been presented that would invalidate that consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse Correct interpretation of consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Userfy There wasn't much discussion and so there wasn't much of a consensus. Overturning is not appropriate but a sensible way forward would be to userfy the topic so that it can be developed further as there seem to be plenty more sources out there. Fodor describes it as "One of Northern Ireland's most important leisure complexes, regularly hosting international tournaments." and there are plenty more references in other books such as The Ulster Year Book and The Story of Antrim. The article Antrim, County Antrim now just has a red link for this important venue and so such alternatives to deletion should be preferred per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
20 February 2014
Hedgewars
I originally restored this article blindly because I didn't realize it had gone to AFD. After seeing it went to AFD, I decided to re-delete it and open this DRV instead. This article is very clearly not a G4 candidate. It has been substantially updated since it was last deleted due to an AFD in 2009. The history shows about 75 edits since the original deletion, from a wide range of users. There is an argument to be made for its lack of notability, but we need an AFD discussion for that. This AFD was left open for just over 24 hours before being closed due to an inappropriate G4 deletion. This does not allow the time necessary to determine consensus on this issue (and I note that only two editors had even commented on the AFD). I'm opening the DRV because I believe this is not a G4 candidate and a full discussion needs to be made regarding its suitability on Wikipedia, given its current state. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse
for now- If a repost of a deleted article does not address the reasons for the deletion, then it is a G4 candidate even if it looks superficially different. I have seen G4 deletions upheld at DRV on those grounds. Reyk YO! 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)- Aaaand now that I've seen the article I'm convinced that overturning and listing at AfD would be a bureaucratic waste of time. Reyk YO! 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- List at AFD (I have not seen the article). Speedy deletion only applies to "the most obvious cases" so if the DRV nominator here thinks it was not a G4 candidate then, with hindsight, the speedy was mistaken. The comments at the one and a bit AFDs do not suggest any harm will come from making the article visible for discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse unless evidence is brought forth that the situation is really any different than it was last time. It also had a pretty spammy feel, so I'm uncomfortable with having it restored if it has no reasonable chance at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- original deletion reason outdated
I want to point out that the original deletion (5 years ago...) was done with the reason "Non-notable video game." (RHaworth).
I do not see how that reason still holds, considering that Hedgewars is very popular these days:
It is the most-downloaded software on gna.org: During January its windows client has been downloaded 87393 times from gna.org! http://stats.gna.org/download.gna.org/usage_201401.html (compare that to warmus with 9182 downloads...)
The popular german site chip.de mirrors the windows download and the latest release version there has over 50.000 downloads with 350 ratings (96% positive) http://www.chip.de/downloads/Hedgewars_32453115.html
It is popular on Distros like Ubuntu and is well received by its community http://www.ubuntu.com/sites/www.ubuntu.com/files/active/softwarecentre_0.jpg https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/hedgewars/
Youtube users upload new videos of it all the time http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=%22hedgewars%22&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
It was included on the CD's of various magazines ( e.g. the nz PCWorld http://imgur.com/FOJ5xPS and some german magazine which name I currently don't remember)
There are a lot of reviews of hedgewars in many different languages out there (e.g. http://www.tuxarena.com/2010/12/hedgewars-awesome-open-source-worms-like-game-for-linux/ http://www.giga.de/spiele/hedgewars/ http://www.linuxforu.com/2009/09/linux-game-review-hedgewars/ ), they are just not that easy to find (unless you search for hedgewars and "last month" in the weeks after a release)
And I don't see why they don't count as 3rd party mention, just because they are not commercial pages. It's not like many commercial magazine/site would suddenly decide to review a FOSS game that was released the first time 6 years ago. Statements like "Only blogs and download sites mention it." (SharkD) seems a bit discriminatory against free open-source games to me.
PS: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place or style to post my position on this - While I use wikipedia a lot (as in view, not edit), I'm afraid I am not really familiar with administrative/editorial protocols :) sheepluva (talk) -- yes, I'm affiliated with the non-commercial free open-source project in question —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
So. I get the feeling from some of the stuff written (won't survive Afd, spammy) that people are ignoring the links we are putting to prove notability. I'd also like to note we'd be happy to incorporate these into the article if that's what it takes, although I've heard that it is COI to do that, but, eh, if we are just moderately augmenting, perhaps it'd be ok.
So. I'm going to put all the links to reviews and references together in one list.
- http://www.pcprofessionale.it/2008/11/17/download-del-giorno-hedgewars/ - print run of 60k
- http://m8y.org/hw/hw-ct.jpg - print run of 320k, article appeared in print
- http://hak5.org/tag/hedgewars - video review
- http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=105
References by way of the psych study that used us, which described the game in a fair amount of detail and included screenshots.
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3835884/
- http://sci.aalto.fi/en/current/news/view/2013-11-21/
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57613407-76/playing-video-games-makes-opponents-think-and-feel-alike/
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-11/au-pcg112113.php
- http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/82054-report-playing-computer-games-makes-brains-feel-and-think-alike
- http://news.silobreaker.com/computer-games-make-players-feel-think-alike-study-5_2267259859852329232
- http://zeenews.india.com/news/health/health-news/computer-games-make-players-feel-and-think-alike_25212.html
- http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/computer-games-make-players-feel-and-think-alike-113112200570_1.html
- http://article.wn.com/view/2013/11/21/Playing_computer_games_makes_brains_feel_and_think_alike_Aal/
- http://www.sciencedaily.es/releases/2013/11/131121091439.htm
- http://www.theneeds.com/learn/n2524275
There are others, but these seemed moderately reputable.
I hesitate to include, too many since probably only a few count as notable by your standards but we've had many reviews by FOSS software/gaming sites. At the very least this points to having a fairly high profile at least in the FOSS world (as if being the 5th FOSS game in the Ubuntu softare centre wasn't evidence of this already)
- http://polishlinux.org/apps/hedgewars-the-worms-redesigned/
- http://www.freewaregenius.com/hedgewars-a-fun-competent-worms-clone/
- http://www.tuxarena.com/2010/12/hedgewars-awesome-open-source-worms-like-game-for-linux/
If these are usable I can post many more.
At one point, (Ubuntu 12.04?) a screenshot from the game was on the http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop page in the Games section, but they keep redesigning that. From a quick site:wikipedia.org Hedgewars google search, seems like people created pages for it under ru, de, pl, es, fr, it, zh, and ko - there were also a fair number of pages referencing Hedgewars across the board. I realise this has nothing to do with 3rd party sources - that's what the scans and links above are for. I just thought it might help point out that this isn't spammy, and that in the FOSS game world, Hedgewars is fairly high profile.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- The article deleted was all primary source material, the sort of thing that would be expected on the publishers website. Wikipedia articles should be based upon what third parties say about the topic, which is different to descriptions of the topic. If you had a registered Wikipedia account with a contribution history across a range of articles, then we'd trust you with a userfied version that you could make "encyclopedic" in style. As it stands, I fear that you'd just resubmit in-universe description, how-to play guide, and promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Not sure if that was addressed at me and/or the other person above - but either way: thank you for clarification. I do understand that most of the page is misplaced/not relevant (from what I can see most of it was added by the same person - I don't know if that was a dev or not, the name doesn't seem familiar to me at all) - and I don't think we question that the page needs to be cleaned up. But why delete and salt the page when you just could remove all the non-relevant sections - those which wouldn't make sense to be kept even if their were non-primary sources for them (control keys, version history, people, etc) - and slap big "citation needed" and "primary sources" notes on top of the few remaining, but relevant, paragraphs? (maybe even with your quote "Wikipedia articles should be based upon what third parties say about the topic, which is different to descriptions of the topic." to further help the people to understand why and what should be fixed? --sheepluva (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- You need to start with an independent commentary, such as a review, from a reputable source, that is not serving as promotion. You also will need to explain your WP:COI, and why enthusiastic authors for the topic are not interested much in contributing anything else. It may be a little unfair, but once Wikipedia has turned on its WP:NOTPROMOTION alert, the bar is raised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ... Speaking personally about this, I'm only here because you deleted the wikipedia article to a game that I've contributed to for 5 years, which has a pretty high profile in FOSS gaming, so I felt deserved its place here. I've hardly touched the article so while I'm an enthusiastic defender of the article's existence, I'm hardly an editor. I'm only offering to edit the article merely to slap in the reviews noted above and satisfy that criticism about the content (which appears to be a new criticism after the notability thing has been hopefully shot down - but that was the initial reason for deletion I believe). While I contribute periodically to certain things, occasionally finding someone with an account to do the upload of an image, I don't really have the time to do more than that, and certainly don't have the time to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia politics and formatting. The article was not written by the devs, while it is a convenient article to point people at when they want some piece of information, we hardly need promotion. We aren't exactly making any money off of this. Sure our feeling are hurt, and thus the heated response. But, yeah, wasn't COI in the first place, and I have no particular desire to do anything COI now, but, I was just pointing out that I could easily work those links above into the article if one of you was unwilling to do it. I'd also like to note that, yes, the article does reference google code and ohloh and such... but I'm sure that could stay if a few more sources were added from the list above. Mozilla Firefox's article is 56% mozilla.org links, and also, yeah, has ohloh and such as well...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, and, I have to say, I don't get the deletionist obsession about notability. I mean, how does stuff like this really hurt Wikipedia. If articles have insufficient sourced content, put a banner at the top, add sorting on disambiguation/meta pages based on popularity/someothercriterionlikeeditorvotes and let people work this out for themselves if they happen upon an article. But certainly "DELETE" seems to be a poor response to an objection over quality. Putting something at the top would have been a good start... In the time we've spent arguing about this, one of you could probably have tossed those review links into a few places on the page and deleted whatever you felt didn't belong there, and generally made everything presumably AOK. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100002023/wikipedia-should-delete-the-deletionists/ (situation described there sure sounds familiar)
-
-
-
-
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- List at AfD. I don't think it will survive AfD, but that's entirely beside the point. There are good reasons why we have discussion-based processes, and an AfD is not just a discussion for discussion's sake.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn the XfD2 close "speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4" to "SNOW delete" (per XfD2). It could reasonably be relisted "for the full seven days". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn It is clearly not acceptable to have someone nominate an article for deletion, and then five years later use their tools during an AfD to unilaterally overturn the previous DRV. On top of that, there was a salting. Skimming the article tells me that too much of the material is IINFO. I looked at one of the links above and it shows that the topic has attracted the attention of researchers in Finland. This means that the world at large has and will have a long-term interest in this topic. I suggest incubation. Unscintillating (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Isn't the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, never more than a purgatory for not quite blatantly unsuitable material, now dead or moribund? I think that the authors are MUCH better advised to practice by contributing to other articles until they are at least autoconfirmed, and then requesting userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- The G4-deleting admin is
WP:INVOLVEDinvolved, single-handedly overturned a DRV, and in doing so terminated an AfD. The article was not a G4 candidate. There is no substantive purpose to restoring the article to mainspace when it can go to draftspace, and if a revised article comes out of WP:Drafts, it can be nominated for a new AfD. Resuming the current AfD is WP:BURO. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, it was a bad G4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Why do you say RHaworth was WP:INVOLVED? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- I didn't review the WP: document before I posted, and I wasn't trying to imply anything that I hadn't already said, so I will amend my previous comment. Sorry, Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The G4-deleting admin is
Note: the project tries to promote the undeletion with the help of fans [7] Matthias M. (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- ... ok. What's the problem here? I asked people to provide you with references (needed for notability) and asked wikipedians for assistance (who would know the politics, and possibly be able to help with cleanup). If there's any actual issue in this post, let me know, and I'll fix it or pull it. (yes, I wrote it)
- BTW, here's a fan provided link.
- http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/481850/how-to_get_free_games_fast_game_downloader/
- Note that while I'm a bit surprised this would be a problem and I'll pull it if you identify one, I can't do much about the various aggregators out there which mirror us. A quick check online shows google indexing 4 of those. I suppose if it is a straight RSS feed they might vanish if I unpublish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
19 February 2014
Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)
- Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Both AfDs were closed as redirect, but User:Eccekevin reverted both, claiming that he had found new sources. While improper, he's possibly right that being on the National Register of Historic Places gives these buildings notability. Could the closes be reviewed with the new information he's provided? Thanks, 6an6sh6 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, I'm about to go off to class, so I don't have time to go into more detail. Maybe later.)
- Endorse the XfDs. NB. DRV is not for reviewing subsequent de-mergers. However,...
- User:Eccekevin has boldly spunout these articles. This should not be called a "revert" in the WP:BRD sense, but a WP:BOLD action. The XfDs are not part of the editing process. You, User:Ansh666, reverted. Your reverting is quite reasonable, as Eccekevin has not provided significant new sourced material to overcome the consensus seen at the XfDs. The proper thing to do now is to discuss, at Talk:List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Eccekevin subsequently did an improper thing (edit warring). The pages should be redirected as per the XfD, and left redirected until there is a consensus at Talk:List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame to do something else.
- I recommend consideration of expanding the material at List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame before seriously making a case to spinout individual halls. I note that the individual halls do not look to meet the third party sourcing requirements of wikipedia-notability, and that Wikipedia:Alternative outlets may apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do not see that they are individually on the National Register. The Main and South Quadrangles as a group of buildings are on the register. This is an historical district, (like the one I live in , which includes about 100 houses. The individual houses are listed & briefly described in the documentation, but that doesn't make each individual house on the register. One or two buildings in the district are I think individually on the register, which is another matter.) We have consistently not included the individual buildings in a historical district--not that we couldn't--we're not paper, and could accommodate the probably hundreds of thousands of articles, but because they are no of encyclopedic importance--the register documentation for the individual buildings in the district is sufficient.
- But let's suppose for a minute that these two buildings were individually on the register--the relevant information would be about the building, not, at present, about the alumni who lived in them for a year or two. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- What is this DRV for? I closed the Badin Hall discussion as 'redirect' because that seemed to be the clear consensus. If someone wants to challenge the merits of that decision, then DRV is the place to do it, but I don't see that anyone has challenged it. Other than that, I fully agree with the comments of SmokeyJoe and DGG above.
-
- Okay, thanks all. @Amatulic: (you forgot to sign) Eccekevin has challenged the closes on his talkpage, among other places. He doesn't seem to want to take it to the proper venues, though. Sorry that I wasn't able to provide links, but the discussion is mostly split between User talk:Eccekevin#Sorin Hall (University of Notre Dame) and User talk:Ansh666#St. Edwards Hall, and another recent AfD that closed as keep.
- I fully understand that DRV isn't supposed to be used to confirm AfD results, and that doing so could probably be seen as pointy behavior, but it was intended to be a proxy DRV for an editor who probably doesn't understand how. DGG has confirmed the suspicions I had about notability, and SmokeyJoe has provided reasonable steps moving forward. Should this stay open? 6an6sh6 23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted both to the redirects per the XfDs and per WP:BRD. Proposals to spinout should now be discussed at Talk:List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe is right. This really isn't about the AfDs, both of which were pretty commonsense closes (disclaimer: I closed one of them). If there's consensus for a standalone article again, though, I don't mind. --BDD (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse the procedure though I disagree on the substantive outcome and would have argued to the contrary had I been aware of the AfDs when they were being debated. Anyway, I don't intend to argue the merits at DRV since this isn't the place, and I don't see closure as redirect as preventing recreation and expansion once notability can be established. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I did a merger for Badin Hall, see Talk:Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame). I don't see a hint of wp:notability here. There was an industrial school from 1897 to 1917 that might merit a stand-alone article if there are sources. Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Constitution Party of Alabama
- Constitution Party of Alabama (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closing admin overtly ignored the entire deletion discussion and inserted his own opinion, pleading WP:IAR. There is no possible reading of the lengthy discussion that could result in a consensus anything resembling "merge all articles", with the majority of responders leaving thought-out comments that at least a significant number surpassed notability guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I read the consensus that way. At most, to me, a few articles deserve to remain un-merged, not a "significant number". That is just how I read the consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I like the close, it is a good solution for a bunch of very weak articles that were not going to be straight deleted. Was the close a WP:supervote, demanding rejection at DRV? I don't think it was, the close seems to reflect a reasonable call of "rough consensus". However, it is a big call affecting a lot of articles, and there was specific case objections. There was no consensus to delete. I suggest that the situation should be considered a weak consensus to merge, with details to be discussed at Talk:Constitution_Party_(United_States). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse (Disclaimer: I am the original nom for the AfD. So add or subtract what you will from the weight given to my opinion.) The argument employed by the appellant seems to be based on a couple of questionable propositions. First that the AfD discussion was a democratic process. And secondly the implication that there was some deliberate malice in the Admin's decision. The outcome of an AfD discussion is based only in part on the weight of opinion one way or another. Much more important is the cogency of the arguments. In this respect, I think the closer got it right. And his very thoughtful short essay only reinforces that view. There were a lot of divergent, and at times heated opinions expressed in this discussion. But with everything said, a judgment needed to be made based on the arguments laid out. And I concur with that judgment with one exception. I see no need for an appeal to WP:IAR. As to the implication of some sort of malicious intent, I saw that thrown around a bit in the discussion, including some directed at myself. I see absolutely no evidence to support such a suspicion. His conclusions seem to represent well one side of a disputed AfD. As long as his conclusion was based on the belief that the arguments from that side were more compelling, I think he has done his job. I will close with the following quote from a notice put at the top of the disputed AfD discussion. "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. " -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse. The administrator action of RoySmith was to not delete the articles, in accordance with the discussion (which looks like a no consensus). The merge decision is done through regular editorial discretion. Looking at the articles, most of the content is basically a repeat of the national platform and a repeat of the same national candidates, over and over again for each state. There is very little substantial in the articles to distinguish one state chapter from another. So on the whole, RoySmith's decision to call this a "merge" based on a sound argument is more than reasonable, it seems like the correct decision. If a state chapter does develop a life of its own to stick out among the others, it can always be split out again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Modify (though it was a good effort at closing)
- (A) Disclaimer, below I !voted "Merge most, keep a couple";
- (B) I was on the receiving end of non-civil and non-AGF remarks from the appellant DroversWife which I chose to ignore but am sad to see such remarks form the basis of his appeal. His assertions that the closing admin "overtly ignored the entire deletion discussion" might merit sanctions if this subject were already under DS. Even though DS doesn't apply (yet) such remarks are not the sort of strong reasoning that is supposed to guide the closing or delRev process.
- (C) Modify this way In 2010 the Colorado party came in #2 in the race for governor, an easy factoid to overlook in the original AFD. Once one focuses on Colorado a reasonable reaction is "Omg, that's huge!" I can't fathom why that chapter shouldn't have an article of its own. I also can't think of a reasoning-based way to draw the line between that chapter and most others who had ballot access but didn't do nearly so well. So in sum, I think any state that had ballot access and fronted candidates should be kept, but all general stuff about the party should be reduced to two sentences saying "The (state chapter name) is the (state) affiliate of the Constitution Party (USA). It's platform reflects the major points of the national party." Then list ballot access and electoral history and anything else that is special. Such text would purge the redundancy while keeping the state-specific stuff, which admittedly in many states in minor. But remember that a candidate who gets just 1/100th of 1% can still break a tie between the major parties, which makes the fact they were in the race at all determinative. Treat other US third parties (greens, libertarians, whoever else comes along) the same way.
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Colorado and several other state articles were not included in the nom as I concluded they had a reasonable claim to notability independent of the national party. This was not a shotgun nomination. I looked at all of the state party articles and only nominated those that I felt had no reasonable claim to independent notability.-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse. I entirely agree with Sjakkalle.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse per Sjakkalle I note that Lexington62, who has an obvious COI as he is editing on behalf of one of the state parties[8] has removed the AfD templates from some articleswith the edit summary "There is/was clearly NO CONTROLLING AUTHORITY to any of it and it appeared to have a political agenda since neither any of the Libertarian or Green Party state pages were similarly attacked". The claim of bias needs to be rejected, I don't think anyone has been working from that pov. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse. Also agreed with Sjakkalle. Any admin who was going to close that was going to have to make a judgement call which was destined to be appealed to DR, but RoySmith's decision seemed to be professional, well-explained, and based on Wikipedia's overall goals of providing useful content. --Aristeo (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm going through the process of changing the AfD tags on all these articles to AfD-merge to's. It will be up to the merger to decide which are worth keeping, I guess. 6an6sh6 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Muhmmadsabir
- User:Muhmmadsabir (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This one is difficult because, technically speaking, everyone followed the rules here to reach a keep decision. Two users cited their opinion, and someone (non-admin) made a closure. However, the reasoning on which the keep was decided is quite obviously flawed.
Despite the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT contention of the main "keep" vote on this discussion, it is undebatable that this page is nothing other than a personal sermon by the user, who has literally zero other contribution to any of the projects. This is as textbook a violation of WP:SOAPBOX as it gets. The user is here for one purpose and one purpose only: to espouse his point of views, all while doing so in the wrong language for the project, and not even bothering to help the encyclopedia. On Commons, I even had blocked this user for continuing to create content out of scope (unlike on English Wikipedia, such things can be deleted on sight on Commons). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just blank it, and the other one too. MfD would be better participated if it wasn't filled with busywork cases that don't need deletion. Yes, it's a NOTWEBHOST violation, but it is sufficiently well dealt with by being blanked. If the author (a new account, Created on 15 January 2014 at 07:35) actively objects, then with the subsequent conversation he is one step closer to becoming a contributor. If the author never returned, then blanking is de facto deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse I don't think the "keep" reasoning at the MFD was flawed in any way at all. Even if a page breaches a policy, that does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the page should be deleted. Perhaps it doesn't matter too much, or perhaps there is some way in which the editor can be helped or the page can be remedied. These sort of MFDs (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pravin Kumar Sonu is a case I particularly remember) are unnecessary and damaging. Thincat (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Blank it. Easiest way. Relist to MfD if user returns and opposes blanking (and does not modify it to be better aligned with userpage policy and/or start contributing to encyclopedia). This is a text-book case of out of project scope userpage. Keep reasoning was seriously flawed, page contains typical G2 test edit material along with religious WP:NOTWEBHOST sermon. MfD process is not working due to non-existent participation. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse I see no communication with the closer mentioned in the nomination, and this is the place to start. I don't see that the text here is a sermon or even an essay, and is more likely to be what are felt to be high-minded viewpoints for people reading his/her page to consider. I have a specific concern here that this page and User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro are indexed on Google. What can be done about this? Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
18 February 2014
Shamar Stephen (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe a "no-consenus" closure is incorrect. An unopposed and supported deletion nomination should be treated similar to a WP:PROD and the article should be deleted. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
With only one endorser, it is clear that there is little discussion. Also note that the no quorum guideline also provides some leniency; it allows a close endorsing the original proposal, which was to delete. While closing as 'no consensus' may not have been the best choice of action, it certainly wasn't incorrect. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Talk:JUSTIN DREW BIEBER
- Talk:JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Was G8'd, although it's the talk page of a redirect that exists. Deleting admin insists they'd make up some reason or another to delete it. (And that they'd delete the redirect if they thought the creator was inexperienced enough that they could get away with using their admin tools to enforce their personal preference as to content. WilyD 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- And, of course, the closing admin has just deleted JUSTIN DREW BIEBER in retaliation for opening this DRV. :( WilyD 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was about to delete it earlier, but got off-line between edits and deletions. Any "retaliation" is your imagination and assuming bad faith. jni (delete)...just not interested 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- That claim is inconsistent with what you've written at User_talk:Jni#Talk:JUSTIN_DREW_BIEBER, where you identify this DRV/my original questioning of your out of process deletion as the reason you chose to delete the redirect out of process as well. WilyD 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- So now you are complaining in DRV, that I did not delete something earlier, but deleted it later? Or that I did not delete it because of reason X? You are not my boss, so I don't have to delete things in exactly the order that suits you. And the WP:DRV is not usually used for arguing why someone did not delete something. jni (delete)...just not interested 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm? No, I'm only noting that the redirect was also deleted out of process, and should be restored by this DRV as well. Requiring a second DRV for a related deletion would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. WilyD 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where does it say in WP:R3 that the criteria in question does not apply to recently created UPPER CASE redirects? Nowhere in the text of the CSD criteria itself. It is you who created this WP:POINTty DRV case in first place, in order to argue technicalities and to get a single and largely irrelevant talk page comment by some random IP-user restored. Now you are complaining about unnecessary bureaucrazy. Go figure. jni (delete)...just not interested 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC
- The place where R3 only applies to implausible redirects and we live on a planet where Keyboards almost invariable have a CAPSLOCK key, for starters. The planet where every Canadian teenage girl I know pronounces his name JUSTIN BIEBER or JUSTIN DREW BIEBER or ♥♥♥♥♥♥JUSTIN DREW BIEBER♥♥♥♥♥ for seconds. Etc. There's no coherent argument to be made R3 applies, at all. WilyD 09:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where does it say in WP:R3 that the criteria in question does not apply to recently created UPPER CASE redirects? Nowhere in the text of the CSD criteria itself. It is you who created this WP:POINTty DRV case in first place, in order to argue technicalities and to get a single and largely irrelevant talk page comment by some random IP-user restored. Now you are complaining about unnecessary bureaucrazy. Go figure. jni (delete)...just not interested 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC
- Hmm? No, I'm only noting that the redirect was also deleted out of process, and should be restored by this DRV as well. Requiring a second DRV for a related deletion would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. WilyD 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- So now you are complaining in DRV, that I did not delete something earlier, but deleted it later? Or that I did not delete it because of reason X? You are not my boss, so I don't have to delete things in exactly the order that suits you. And the WP:DRV is not usually used for arguing why someone did not delete something. jni (delete)...just not interested 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- That claim is inconsistent with what you've written at User_talk:Jni#Talk:JUSTIN_DREW_BIEBER, where you identify this DRV/my original questioning of your out of process deletion as the reason you chose to delete the redirect out of process as well. WilyD 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was about to delete it earlier, but got off-line between edits and deletions. Any "retaliation" is your imagination and assuming bad faith. jni (delete)...just not interested 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Overturnas a reasonable contest of a speedy and list at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Overturnthe speedy deletion of the mainspace redirect and list at RfD. There is some embarrassingly unseemly admin behaviour at play. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)- Since when CSD R3 is not applicable to recently created UPPER CASE CRAP REDIRECTS NOBODY WILL EVER TYPE OR SEARCH FOR? jni (delete)...just not interested 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Speedy deletion is for obvious cases where there is no reasonable likelihood of objection. Here, you were already aware that another respected editor apparently supported the redirect. CSD R3 does not mandate deletion on the basis of allcaps. You knew going in that the deletion would be contentious. You have therefore used the admins tools in a dispute. If there is any scope for discussion, the deletion should proceed through an XfD. These deletions should be overturned and listed at XfD, and you should be trouted for knowing using CSD in a dispute. Is there a history of discord between you and WilyD, or do you have a habit of aggressive speedy deletion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- There was one admin who created hundreds of redirects that I deleted per CSD R3 rule. I have speedy deleted stuff by other admins before, and will do so in future if needed. Nothing out of ordinary here. There is no admin tools usage during dispute here. I did not block anyone nor deleted anything out-of-process. Speedy deletions are contested all the time, usually with silly arguments that have no merit, this case is no different than thousands of others. WilyD does not WP:OWN the redirect in question, and admins should not create speedily deletable content, obviously. WilyD has still not explained, why he wants to restore garbage edits like i love JUSTIN BIEBER from talk page history. WilyD has also himself deleted this same talk page in question before, with exact same rationale I used - it containing just inane test edits. When editor deleted a page, then raises a case in DRV when someone else deletes the same page again with similar reasoning, that actually triggers my troll detector! I don't think I have to anticipate bizarre behavior like this. These days Wikipedia is edited by some many utterly confused people that "reasonable likelihood of objection" is an unobtainable standard. WP is also not a byrocracy, so going through the XfD - especially MfD for the talk page - would be just waste of time. jni (delete)...just not interested 07:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral. While a hint of objection or controversy should be enough to conservatively choose to send to XfD instead of speedying, the nominator's case is not as strong as the deleting admin's explanations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Keep deleted. It is the deleting admin here. The deleted revisions don't contain any content worth saving, just a single speedy deletion contestation by some IP-address. I'm not "making up some reasons or another to delete it". I deleted this as G6 cleanup or G8 as talk page of R3-deletable redirect. Application of these policies is not a personal preference to content, we simply don't need nonsensical typo redirects like this, nor their contentless talk pages and existing policy allows speedy deletion of both the redirect and its talk page in this case. Wily has deleted this himself in past! This nomination to DRV is just to make a WP:POINT for some reason. What exactly there is in the talk page that should be salvaged? jni (delete)...just not interested 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to choose to believe we're reviewing the speedy deletion of JUSTIN DREW BIEBER as well as the talk page. The reason cited was "nonsense", and we do have a speedy deletion criterion for patent nonsense, so we'll need a temporary restore before we can decide whether that criterion did legitimately obtain. I can see that emotions are running high over this vitally important issue, but I do hope this discussion will be conducted with more dignity and less passion from now on.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- That would be my earlier deletion, not the R3 redirect case WilyD is talking about. It seems I managed to fumble the deletion log entry in the earlier one:
(del/undel) 07:29, 17 February 2014 Jni (talk | contribs | block) deleted page JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (nonsense) (view/restore)
as the real reason for that deletion was (of course) that the content was entirely duplicated from the real article (but page title was nonsensical). Also note that there is an earlier R3 speedy deletion by uninvolved admin:
(del/undel) 18:40, 18 August 2010 Dlohcierekim (talk | contribs | block) deleted page JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (r3) (view/restore)
so there is a precedent for my perfectly normal and valid R3 speedy deletion. And the talk page this DRV is really about, has been deleted four times already and every version is just junk, save for last deleted entry that is the speedy deletion contestation statement by anon that WilyD wants to keep as some kind of archival record and this being the root cause for this important WP:DRV nomination. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) - The JUSTIN DREW BIEBER page was just a redirect to Justin Bieber, who is a Canadian singer with the middle name Drew. WilyD 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- After some thought, my view is that this discussion should be closed without result. I feel that the dispute here is fundamentally about conduct rather than content. I think that at the heart of it, we have a clash of personality between sysops, and DRV is not the correct venue for resolving that. I also think that when the clash of personality is resolved, it will be trivial to decide what to do about the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- That would be my earlier deletion, not the R3 redirect case WilyD is talking about. It seems I managed to fumble the deletion log entry in the earlier one:
- Endorse - We don't need to start making YELLING CAPS FOR SHORTCUTS. It doesn't matter how we got there, but if the end result is that JUSTIN DREW BIEBER remains a redlink, then we're golden. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse. The history of the talk page is:
-
- (del/undel) (diff) 08:09, 17 February 2014 . . 175.141.118.4 (talk | block) (509 bytes) (→This page should not be speedy deleted because...: new section)
- (del/undel) (diff) 04:40, 12 August 2012 . . Aleenf1 (talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
- (del/undel) (diff) 07:13, 10 August 2012 . . 173.177.82.71 (talk | block) (22 bytes) (←Created page with 'i love you :) ♥.♥')
- (del/undel) (diff) 23:01, 6 September 2011 . . 41.178.185.62 (talk | block) (21 bytes) (←Created page with 'i love JUSTIN BIEBER')
- (del/undel) (diff) 23:48, 8 March 2010 . . 99.168.83.177 (talk | block) (empty) (rv vandalism)
- (del/undel) (diff) 23:45, 8 March 2010 . . Laurieann riojas (talk | contribs | block) (50 bytes) (←Created page with 'U R SO MEAN AND HE IS MARRIED TO LAURIEANN RIOJAS!')
so there is nothing worth keeping. Otherwise, the redirect is unnecessary - if you type 'JUSTIN DREW BIEBER', you get redirected anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse There is no conceivably use for the page, We're NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Notice A related discussion is at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Deletion police is after me. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn This issue should not have gone beyond the initial post that noted that a talk page had been G8 deleted while the main page existed. The error could have been corrected.
The deleting administrator has stipulated that this was an out-of-process deletion.He/she also asserts the right to decide if talk pages and talk page discussion are "useful". Given that I don't have access to the two edit histories, and that the history is disputed in the existing record, I have not analyzed further and have not commented on the R3. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)- This was not out-of-process deletion. Please read the deletion policy. We simply don't have rigid rules that say deleting admin must always first delete the speedily-deletable non-talk page, only afterwards the associated talk page. If the page is speedily deletable, its talk page has no right to exist by default, unless there is a deletion debate or anything actually important there. Please do some deletions in order to see how it works in practise! Of course deleting admins can assess the usefullness of deleted talk page, how you'd do G6 cleanup if you could not use your common sense? The edit histories are not disputed in this discussion, the useless history of the talk page that this review debate is about, is right there in front of your just couple lines above! None of the overturners or the nominator have yet explained, why they find the edits "i love you :) ♥.♥", "i love JUSTIN BIEBER", "U R SO MEAN AND HE IS MARRIED TO LAURIEANN RIOJAS!" must be resurrected. Talk pages that contain inane remarks are routinely deleted per G2, G3, G6 or some other criteria of speedy deletion policy. Could you please provide an explanation right here, why these inane talk page edits are needed in this encyclopedia, or do we really need to drag this trivial and obvious speedy deletion to RfD after DRV? jni (delete)...just not interested 07:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I think that you want to rewrite history, but I will strike the part in my comment that says that you have stipulated to the deletion being out of process. Instead I will directly quote,
-
Uhh, maybe I should have used G6 here but who cares about the exact reason as there was no useful content in talk page. I would have deleted the stupid upper-case redirect also, had it been created by some newbie. Is there a reason to keep it? jni (delete)...just not interested 10:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- The key words here are that you "would have deleted" which means (1) that you didn't delete, and (2) that you didn't plan to delete the redirect. G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", which according to your words this is not. As for the answer to the first half of your question, one word with a wikilink: strawman. To the second half of the question, I have not commented on the R3. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- "would have deleted" means exactly what it means. If admin sees speedily deletable material, they are under no obligation to take action. Performing admin actions is entirely voluntary. If I see someone vandalizing your userpage with Justin Bieber spam, I can just ignore it, make some snide remark about it on some talk page and go surfing for some porn in the 'net. Then at later time, I can change my mind and perform the admin action I contemplated about earlier but didn't perform at the time. Delaying admin actions is even preferred in many cases, although I admit out-of-order G8 and R3 combination with several hours time difference is unusual and may be confusing for some editors (but it is fairly common to delete talk page first, and the page immediately afterwards, if it saves few mouse clicks for deleting admin). Admins are also allowed to use their common sense when cleaning zero-content wiki artifacts, we are not even talking about an article or anything that has any encyclopedic qualities embedded into it here! <tinc>I mistook WilyD as one of my trusted cabalist cronies, but he choose to ignore my generous offer to overlook his R3-deletable edit as a special favor to fellow admin, but instead he choose to start yelling about admin abuse and made this nuisance complaint, of zero-content talk page he had himself deleted earlier, to this forum.</tinc> jni (delete)...just not interested 08:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The statement "The 'deletion contestation' statements of seldomly even read by deleting admins..." is concerning. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- "would have deleted" means exactly what it means. If admin sees speedily deletable material, they are under no obligation to take action. Performing admin actions is entirely voluntary. If I see someone vandalizing your userpage with Justin Bieber spam, I can just ignore it, make some snide remark about it on some talk page and go surfing for some porn in the 'net. Then at later time, I can change my mind and perform the admin action I contemplated about earlier but didn't perform at the time. Delaying admin actions is even preferred in many cases, although I admit out-of-order G8 and R3 combination with several hours time difference is unusual and may be confusing for some editors (but it is fairly common to delete talk page first, and the page immediately afterwards, if it saves few mouse clicks for deleting admin). Admins are also allowed to use their common sense when cleaning zero-content wiki artifacts, we are not even talking about an article or anything that has any encyclopedic qualities embedded into it here! <tinc>I mistook WilyD as one of my trusted cabalist cronies, but he choose to ignore my generous offer to overlook his R3-deletable edit as a special favor to fellow admin, but instead he choose to start yelling about admin abuse and made this nuisance complaint, of zero-content talk page he had himself deleted earlier, to this forum.</tinc> jni (delete)...just not interested 08:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The key words here are that you "would have deleted" which means (1) that you didn't delete, and (2) that you didn't plan to delete the redirect. G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", which according to your words this is not. As for the answer to the first half of your question, one word with a wikilink: strawman. To the second half of the question, I have not commented on the R3. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Endorse, no worthwhile content to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse per above. I see no useful purpose in an all caps redirect and no need for the talk page and think WilyD is a little too quick to find fault. Dlohcierekim 23:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I find nothing compelling about a talkpage deletion preceding an article page deletion as a reason to overturn the deletion of a talk page where the article page is subsequently deleted. Due diligence requires that I look at the talk page after I've decided to delete and article. If I find nothing compelling there, I delete the talk page and then the article. That's just good time management. There would be nothing gained in flipping back to the article page to delete it and then return to the talk page to delete it. Also, I think the rationale for a deletion is less important than that it meets a CSD category. There are times when more than one CSD category could apply. Does it really matter if it is deleted per G6 or G8? Should we undelete it because we don't like the rationale? Dlohcierekim 14:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse We could debate why all day long, but in the end, the result will be the same. Let's move along. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse. I'm puzzled that this even got this far. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse, deletion of the redirect was reasonable, deletion of the talk page was also reasonable. In a technical sense I suppose it was done in the wrong order, but there's really nothing here worth saving. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
Recent discussions
15 February 2014
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I feel that the deletion of this article was not properly handled. The argument "Articles such as List of films considered the worst are appropriate because every entry has a citation to a notable critic saying that it is the worst thing they've ever seen, but this is effectively just List of TV shows that someone, somewhere, wrote a bad review of." makes no sense, as "a notable critic saying that it is the worst thing they've ever seen" pretty much is "something that someone, somewhere, wrote a bad review of". I also feel that the fact that this is a valid WP:CFORK of List of television series considered the worst, whose merit as a "list of X considered the worst" has been defended. Similarly, List of films considered the worst has been put up for deletion a billion times but kept every single time. Overall, I just think that the AFD used muddled, circular reasoning and did not properly reach a conclusion that the list was bad. What makes it so different from any of the other "List of X considered the worst" lists which are doing the exact same thing without risk of deletion? Requesting an overturn. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 February 2014
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article passes Wikipedia's notability tests without question. The Halal Guys has over 4000 reviews on Yelp with 4 and a half stars. The article has been covered extensively in the New York Times, [9], [10], Food & Wine magazine, Huffington Post [11], Serious Eats [12], New York Street Food [13], [14]. Citations on the page itself show that the article is not an advertisement and the premise under which the article was nominated show inherited bias suggesting that the stand is not notability because it is a cart. The user who nominated this article User:ScottyBerg is a confirmed sockpuppet whose has been indefinitely banned. Please restore article so I can further edit and improve it. I would appreciate input from editors living in New York City. Extensive coverage pushes the notability of this cart above others such as Grease Trucks which have also passed notability and AfD. Valoem talk 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Please restore article for discussion. Thank you ! Valoem talk 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC) I went ahead and removed cruft, weasel words, and added citation. Valoem talk 23:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 February 2014
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was created deleted several times in a classic "wheel war" between new users and editors who disagree with the existence of the article. I created the article a few days ago with "dummy information" with the intent removing the info and keeping the template. Someone proposed a deletion but it was removed too quickly for me to see who made the proposal and why it was proposed. Another editor somehow managed to block the title, forcing me to use "Super Bowl LIII." (with a period), making the template editing somewhat tricky (see my contributions to Super Bowl LII). Given that I'm inclined to replace the article again, I would like some input as to why a handful editors would be annoyed at making a page on a future event. The "crystal ball" claim seems reasonable for events many decades away, but the one I'm trying to create is only 5 years away. Presbitow (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
this article has been merged and redirected with Rahul Mahajan (TV personality) on the basic of being not not notable. i think it is highly notable. Not because she is Rahul Mahajan (TV personality)'s wife but also she is a celebrity herself. So why is she merged? And being married to Rahul Mahajan isnt the only thing she has done in her life . why wont she get recognition for all the other films and performance and awards she has got ? All my point is that Dimpy Mahajan is absolutely worthy of getting peoples attention. And she herself before getting married was a star so why should she be merged into Rahul Mahajan (TV personality) Srimoyeeganguly (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive
2014 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2013 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2012 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2011 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2010 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2009 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2008 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2007 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2006 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |