Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The closer closed the discussion as no consensus but I think it should be closed as keep.Casprings (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I nominated four articles and three of them were closed within hours by a non-admin. I believe it should not have been speedily closed instead remained open for discussion and it should not have been closed by a non-admin who was involved in similar articles. By speedily closing, User Jwslubbock could not comment in time at one XfD and he/she did so after its closure (which should not be done after archival of discussion). I request that all three AfDs should be reopened for discussion to achieve consensus. Other two AFDs are located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Said Janan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sheeraz M A A Z T A L K 18:06, 26 January 2018 (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. |
My main concern here is that the "No sourcing" part of my nomination was never addressed. At no point was it proven that this is a notable topic. While there are five keeps, they're all WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT. The only reasons given were "Keep and expand, this is a notable topic". No effort to prove notability was ever given, nor any evidence that sources on this topic exist. I feel this should be renominated to gather a real consensus and proof of notability, and not just "keeps" given for totally invalid reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 24 January 2018 (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. |
On 3 December 2017 at 17:34 (UTC), Whpq (talk · contribs) listed for discussion the file in question saying, "Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8." On 28 December 2017 at 10:12 (UTC), Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) relisted the discussion. On 5 January 2018 at 07:05 (UTC), Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) relisted the discussion, but did not close the entry from 28 December, where discussion continued. On 13 January 2018 at 06:58 (UTC), Killiondude closed that fork of the discussion as "no consensus" without having seen the seven further comments on the 28 December listing. On 23 January 2018 at 00:37 (UTC), SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the more-comprehensive 28 December listing on the basis that it had been relisted (incompletely) and closed already. Yes, I am involved in this discussion, and yes, I have an expectation for how it should be closed IAW policies, but I'm not asking for a review because the discussions were closed against those expectations. I'm listing it because its closures were (probably, accidentally) improper. (a) Killiondude relisted the discussion incorrectly, causing them to then close the discussion in which the interested parties were not participating. (b) SlimVirgin closed the more-active discussion, pointing to the incorrect and unrealized now-closed discussion as cause. I hope none of the parties mentioned here take offense, and that my intentions here are not to slap anyone's hand, but to just fix a malformed sequence of events. Thanks — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:55, 23 January 2018 (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. |
redirect deleted without a discussion, while Shitdown, 2013 government shitdown and 2018 government shitdown are being discussed at WP:RFD. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closer declared that "unestablished editors get little weight" to discount keep rationales RAN (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment There are a some issues that I would like to address in relation to conduct of the AfD discussion. It will be a lengthy piece and will take some time to put together. To be clear and up front, I took part in the discussion and voted Keep. I was disappointed, but the decision is the decision and I will not re-visit it. I am posting now to raise points about the process and the conduct of the discussion. I will summarise what I have to say here now, and provide examples later.
Well I am not going to say no to that offer - unless it will just lead down the path of wasting even more time on a losing battle to get this work accepted. As of right now, I do not believe there are any additional usable sources I didn't use already to add to prove Biddle's notability, so what are you suggesting be done? As mentioned, I don't think just removing material helps notability. BTW it is already just 1/2 the size of what I first posted, thanks to Elektricity. I personally do not see less as making for a better article. Have you found something I am unaware of?
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted because it was created by a banned user, but I think the subject of the article has a good claim to notability with in-depth coverage from multiple sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I brought this to requests for undeletion, and the admin who deleted it (Berean Hunter) noted that the article had been previously deleted via AfD. I don't know what that article looked like, but the discussion makes me think that the coverage in the sources I've listed wasn't known to the participants in the discussion. The version that was just deleted had started as a translation of the Spanish version, and Berean Hunter noted that the same banned user had created that article in Spanish, but since the user wasn't banned at the time in Spanish, I don't know that that's relevant. -- irn (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2018 (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. |
Original photos by Alison Phillips --evrik (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I submitted a draft for review at Draft:ThirdLove a few months back. The draft was deleted by an administrator for being a copyright violation. I asked the administrator where the copyright violation was and to restore the draft so it could be reviewed. Instead, they replied, “Surely Brakroid would have been a better user name? Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC).” I am not sure what the purpose of making fun of my username is but I put the draft with minor corrections into my sandbox and would ask that it be restored to a draft so people can review it. Here is the link to me already asking the administrator who didn’t provide a response to my undeletion request - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#ThirdLove Barkroid (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2018 (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. |
Lack of discussion / interruption of edits intended to correct the reasons given to delete the article. This is an article that I was actively in the process of fixing to conform with WP standards, when it was deleted without notice or discussion. The grounds for deletion were claimed to be G-11, but the fixes were intended to correct this so interested parties could see the published evidence that this preparation is not effective for the claimed diseases. The ubiquity of the advertisements makes the article notable, and the corrections necessary to eliminate bias. An objection to the article was that there were no articles linking to it, so I was providing some from Ménière's disease and Tinnitus to the deleted article. However, some editors were objecting to them, even though they were sourced from the peer-reviewed medical lliterature, and I was in the process of revising them. My added links supported by a new reference from the literature were deleted by the same editor, with no reason given, and a note regarding the deletion I placed on that editor's talk page was also deleted by that editor. Since edits were being deleted without cause, I reverted them and asked for discussion, referrring editors to the talk:Lipo-flavonoid for discussion. Instead that page, along with the base article Lipo-flavonoid was deleted instead of holding a discussion. --Zeamays (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'd like to have this page re-considered at DRV, with the aim to be able to bring the page into mainspace. Despite being an admin, as an involved editor, I don't think I should just be undoing the salting and moving it myself. The previous DRV discussion last year summarizes the full history of the page neatly, but in short:
I would therefore submit that whether you like the topic or don't like the topic, there's enough coverage evidenced in the article for this to be unsalted and moved into mainspace, at the very least, and if necessary a full AFD could be carried out then. Thanks. fish&karate 12:08, 15 January 2018 (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. | ||
Summary (For the TL;DR crowd)
The following text is supporting material, however a decision should be able to be reached based off the five points raised above.
Editing break
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I had asked the admin to relist however they pointed me here instead, I personally believe the logo fails NFCC #8 (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.), Anyway I'm not seeing any consensus to keep at the moment and no one in the FFD could explain why text alone wasn't enough so I personally think it should be relisted for another week (and if consensus is again to keep then I'll obviously accept that but IMHO I think it was a tad too soon to close), Thanks –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 13 January 2018 (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. |
Deletion reason is (Mass removal of pages added by Cnrail37592114) without checking content (this station exists for real) Ywwuyi, GCCPK (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The game was recently released on Steam, has an active following and is in constant development. It is one of the best selling XBLIG of all time, just like FortressCraft and Castle Miner. Both of those games still have their own articles, and are equally notable to Total Miner. The article should be reinstated and not a redirect to Minecraft. 86.150.18.203 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2018 (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. |
"Gummo" is on the album F%CK THE HATERS by American musician 6ix9ine. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted for being created by a banned user evading their ban however the page was not created by a user banned at the time of the articles creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Schneider1972 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 January 2018 (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. |
My page on Mr. Bobby Kalotee was recently deleted by your ADMIN (RHaworth), upon contacting him he asked me to work with DRV hence this request. The admin also deleted by sandbox (User:Sagar vaibhav/sandbox). Below is my communication with RHaworth admin. "Hello Mr. Haworth, You recently deleted by wikipedia page on Bobby Kalotee. Kindly help me fix the issues on the page so that I can either remove or edit them for the page to pass your and Wikipedia's criteria. Kindly feel free to email me to discuss further. Seems like you also deleted by sandbox page. Kindly let me know what and how can I fix it do retrieve my info back. If possible for both my page on Bobby and also my sandbox page kindly list 1. what text/link should I remove from it? 2. How can I restore my sandbox back with its previous contents? Thanks vaibhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar vaibhav (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Ask at DRV if you must. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)" Apart from this here's my impression of Mr. Bobby Kalotee. He's a true social worker and humanitarian who has worked for his local & international communities in times if distress and natural calamity. All his charitable work has been done with the sole purpose of serving humanity. He never ever expects or gets anything back from his humanitarian activities. I hope your review board will take this into consideration and work with me to get his wiki page listed. All the photos and awards certificates that I uploaded as part of this article were taken by me from his office. I only used the material and info that I would personally get from his office. Thanks for all your help and cooperation in advance. Sagar vaibhav (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Hut 8.5, Cryptic - Thanks for your response. I'll keep your points while redrafting the page. Kindly restore my sandbox so that I can work on editing the article. I promise I'll rewrite the article but I need the basic text, links and formatting which will help me re-frame and rewrite the article again. Help here is highly appreciated.
Hello user RHaworth - I did that to cite and prove all the awards that he earned for his social work. Also SmokeyJoe kindle let me know if you can email me my sandbox info. I'll rewrite this page but I need my sandbox restored so that I can reuse all the wikipedia editing and formatting that I did. RHaworth, SmokeyJoe, Cryptic - Is there a way to avoid this. Could have I sent my page to either of you for a review and suggested edits to avoid deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar vaibhav (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Cryptic - I do not work for or with Bobby. I first met Bobby Kalotee at India Day Parade and was impressed by his charity work and humility. when I tried to look him up online I did not see any Wiki page on his name and thought may be I could start one. I'm a JAVA software developer by profession and not a news reporter, so to get more info about Bobby I got in touch with Bobby's office and to gather more information about his work. I used the text from the resume that they sent me, which now I see is similar to his linkedin profile (I only read/checked his linkedin profile after my page was deleted). I personally took photos of all his degrees and certificates to prove all the text in my wikipage. I thought these pics would help substantiate all the awards and Bobby's charitable community work. I honestly did not know about copyright and other legal issues hence I request you guys to consider my request to restore atleast my sandbox so that I can rewrite the article. Restoring my sandbox will help me re-use the wiki markups that I used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar vaibhav (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 January 2018 (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. |
Iraqi singer and songwriter.I added more than six sources What is the purpose of deleting the article??? Also Khaled Alhnen.No need to delete such articles! - Regards (Please see this User_talk:Elahrairah#Ali_Alsalim_&_Khaled_Alhnen) IamIRAQI (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The template FilmAffinity was recently deleted without clear consensus since there were 4 deletes and 3 keeps. Moreover, the Wikipedia guidelines state that consensus depends on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, and the ones that voted "delete" don't offer objective information or anything really valuable, even one user, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is showcasing incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The consensus that the deleting administrator suggested is not at all obvious from the discussion. This administrator has not responded to a request to reconsider his conclusion. The reason the page was nominated and the argument for a weak redirect both seemed invalid after moving the page to Tabula scalata (please check this term with a Google Books search if in doubt). A merge with a page that is closely related would be acceptable, but I don't consider the page Anamorphosis in the argument for MERGE nor the page Lenticular printing as closely related. Joortje1 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is one of the worst closes I've seen in recent memory. There's no policy based reason for deletion, there's an obvious GNG-based rationale for Keeping, massively demonstrated by me, there's a big majority of AfD participants opining for Keep, and we have Sandstein Supervoting No Consensus for no apparent reason other than IDONTLIKEIT, I suppose. Of course, the closer is embroiled in big, loud AE drama just now over the Current American Politics topic and maybe didn't have time to really pay attention to this one or something, so maybe he should be excused, but I'd like to ask that this bad close be overturned to Keep on the basis of the above. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The rational for deletion was focused on tendentious behavior instead of evidence of notability as observed by user:Anachronist without any real objection from the discussants. Ejembi12 (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am asking for this discussion to be reopened as the close was a clear violation of established policy. There was no clear consensus for a redirect. 1. The discussion was closed only a few hours after it began, I believe the standard policy is seven days 2. This was a non-admin closure when there was no clear consensus. 3. The editor who closed the discussion was also involved in it, also a violation. In case anyone raises the issue, I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing editor because a. he is not an admin and b. this wasn't a judgement call, this is a clear violation of established procedures. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (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. |
Miniapolis’s deletion isn't valid (no existing AfD debate), but whether it's being actively used or not is irrelevant as far as our notability requirements are concerned. My objections are here: 1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda; 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda. Janggun Dungan (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2018 (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. |
Page deleted outside the AfD process. Last time I saw the page, it seemed a legitimate page for a notable child actress. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2018 (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. |
Original: Under Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) subpage here. This would be an administrative !supervote regardless of the opinion of the closer there was no consensus that this person fell under WP:BLP1E. BLP1E states: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
The term each is used and the 3rd criteria is not met. It was also debatable whether or not his social media allow him to pass the first guideline as Chinese sources had mentioned him prior. Looking at these sources such as the Death of Man in Skyscraper Fall in China Puts a Spotlight on ‘Rooftopping’ from the New York Times states this man's fame in China has put a spotlight on rooftopping saying "The young man’s death exemplified, again, the internet obsession of inviting millions of strangers to witness a life, in all its perils, pranks and failures."
This stronger source from BBC states "A recent Beijing News investigation found that Mr Wu had posted more than 500 short videos and livestreams on Huoshan, garnering a million fans and earning at least 550,000 yuan (£62,000; $83,000). Huoshan had prominently promoted his videos as recently as June." Another source from NYMag states "Performing dangerous stunts in the name of viral fame and incredible aerial photos has become a trend in recent years. It’s almost surprising — if fortunate — that we don’t hear about more stunts gone terribly wrong. One can only tempt fate by hoverboarding on a skyscraper so many times. Earlier this year, a photographer in Chicago died after falling 20 stories during a shoot. Since Yongning’s death, Chinese officials have asked people to stop livestreaming their stunts, and called for the streaming platforms to stop incentivizing users to attempt said stunts." CNN states "Wu Yongjing, whose nickname on Chinese social media was "the Extreme," is a casualty of the international daredevil trend known as "rooftopping," which has taken off across China where a ready prevalence of newly built skyscrapers has combined with a boom in social media apps." Another source Time magazine state: A Chinese climber famous for scaling skyscrapers without any safety equipment has died after falling from a 62-story building in the city of Changsha, according to his girlfriend. Wu gained a large following on the Chinese social media network Weibo — he has more than 60,000 followers at time of writing — where he had posted hundreds of photos and videos of himself atop buildings he successfully scaled. His followers began to worry when he stopped posting updates in November." This person is not run of the mill and the dicussion focused on these sources. 3 keeps and 2 deletes the arguments for deletion were not any stronger. This person is from China and has received widespread coverage in international sources. We haven't even begun to delve into Chinese sources. Overturn to no consensus Valoem talk contrib 07:10, 4 January 2018 (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. |
It seems to be unreasonable to delete Romance Europe while we accept Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe entries. The fact that Romance Europe or Romance-speaking Europe is "an awkward and uncommon term" should not be the reason to delete this page, because it has a popular term - Latin Europe. However, the entry Latin Europe is a disambiguation page, so using the term Romance Europe or Romance-speaking Europe really helps. Yejianfei (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |