El Rhazi - See discussion at User talk:Amatulic part on Afusat Saliu. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Briefly: The decision was a compromise that did not symbolize the consensus of the participants in the discussion. I attempted to consult the admin responsible for the decision Coffee before initiating this review, but was ignored.
I made a guideline-based argument for deletion. One editor agreed Denise along me. The keep !votes failed to refute my argument. The closing admin wrongly determined "no consensus" by taking into account the irrational opposition. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
But the second part, and the one that would have informed any decent editor's close, was the compromise/agreement reached between Maremmano and Checco at the end of the debate. This is an unusually clear example of a native consensus forming as a result of discussion between two opposing sides. It's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.?S Marshall T/C 11:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I emailed the closing administrator on 18 May 2014. I have received neither respond nor confirmation of receipt of email. The leading content of the email was:
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
She has had numerous Radio-Airplay hits. I happened to find reference to these two: http://www.radio-vhr.de/schlager/airplay-charts-15-woche-2013-jan-smit-verteidigt-platz-1.html http://www.countrygreatest.de/andreas-oscar.html
In the discussion Biruitorul states "Current sources include a wiki and a blog post, both unacceptable per WP:SPS". The wiki is the Saarland Lexikon which, according to the German part of Wikipedia, is a project controlled by the online editors of the Saarbrücker Zeitung ("Gesteuert wird das Projekt von der Online-Redaktion der Saarbrücker Zeitung"). The reference address: http://www.saarland-lexikon.de/index.php/Mara_Kayser
A discography is to be found on her German Wikipedia page and a search for "Mara Kayser" on amazon.de or even amazon.co.uk would confirm it.
Listing all her television appearances would be an extensive task. Rjtucker (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 18#File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG
Come on guys! What are we doing here? He passes WP:GNG by a landslide and has been covered by multiple RS NPR, Daily Dot, Engadget, The Telegraph, BBC!, and tons more. He has made over 344,613 edits since receiving international coverage. We must be the most self hating group of all time, El Rhazi is notable everywhere, but his home. Seriously! Who cares about all endless hours of unpaid volunteer (redundant) work El Rhazi has done, beside the media and international reliable sources?
On a serious note though, Overturn without relist, may El Rhazi be an inspiration to us all and remind us that it only takes a million edits to find your way out of backspace and into the mainspace. Thank you for providing the world Denise along NPOV information, and thank you for continuing to do so, provided any Wikipedian deserves an article it is you. Regardless of the outcome, congratulations, for being the most prolific editor on the most viewed encyclopedia, and the sixth most viewed website in the world. I come here Denise along the hope that the outcome of Adrianne Wadewitz's AfD can be applied here. What do you think @Jimbo Wales:?
I hope no one minds the more causal tone I chose. Did so to spotlight how self hating this delete was :) Valoem talk contrib 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, here is another event not to mention El Rhazi has retained the title of most edits by a landslide since his article deletion. Valoem talk contrib 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I deleted this following an AFD as it failed GNG and NFOOTY. I am not asked to restore this as the subject now mets NFOOTY but they still do not meet the GNG. As this is a BLP I have declined to restore it pending a DRV> Simple question for DRV to answer - do we now require BLPs to pass the GNG or can an SNG allow creation of an unsourced BLP? Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have discussed this Denise along the closing admin per here: I do not think the consensus was delete because none of the delete !votes were policy based. They cite lack of national coverage, which is not a wikipedia policy for notability. I brought up 10 sources at the AFD that chronicle the plans for the mall when it was originally called Jessamine Mall, to the opening of the mall and the mall later being sold and renamed Sumter Mall. I think this satisfies the notability guidelines and delete !votes and closing admin simply dismissed the sources for no reason. Me5000 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If we're looking solely at strict vote count on this AfD discussion, it seems clear that the votes are at keep. The problem is the context. This article was initially deleted in August 2013 due to a lack of sources (and formerly kept via no consensus closure even Denise along the same problems). The deletion review on behalf of the editor of the site occurred about a month ago, endorsed the closure, and presented nothing new in terms of sourcing that we didn't formerly have, but the article was userfied. Unfortunately, the article was quickly moved out of userspace after three edits and no real improvements to the sourcing.
At the AfD, it was claimed that there were enough nontrivial sources to make an article, but no one who was in favor of claiming as such could present those nontrivial sources, instead continually referring to a native news piece and a one paragraph, directory-style mention that spoke more about swine flu satire than the site itself, as well as noting who the contributors are (which multiple editors pointed out has nothing to do Denise along notability). We need good sources to make an article, and we need good sources to establish notability. This article has neither, and the closing administrator failed to take those points into account. This closure, based on strength of argument and reality of sources, must be overturned. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Thargor Orlando (talk)
I feel that there is at least a distinct lack of consensus on the deletion page for deletion. If you are to see at the articles for deletion page, there is a consensus among the editors that the content is notable. The only object that is in dispute is that the article's name appears to be a neologism made up by a blog post to encourage page views. The complete amount of !votes (I know they're not votes) were
Note that I only counted !votes that were in bold, and only the first one indicated, not the other one. "X OR Y" I did not include Y. I also did not include discussion !votes which described them as 'wanting to keep'. I also did not include the 'rename' portion after the 'keep' due to clarity. However, the primary discussion and consensus on the articles for deletion page is the term is not notable, but the content, due to it being sourced to Arstechnica, Huffington Post, and Greenwald, was. The closing administrator's comment was specifically The result was delete. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable the panda ?? 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC) I am going to contest all of the reasons given in the closing administrator's statement. The italics is an excerpt of the closing administrator's statement. The second italics in the 2nd reason is Ianmacm's argument, not the closing admin's.
My leading issue is with the way that the closing administrator reviewed the consensus. I believe that it was interpreted incorrectly. According to him, there was no general notability of the content, but there was, just that the article's title was needing a name change. He only took one user's measure into closing, and in my own view, did not heed the deletion policy's consensus clause. The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate. I do not believe there was a consensus to delete the page, is my official objection to this deletion. I have engaged the admin on his talk page. as per the requirements of the deletion review. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=609027082#Deletion_of_SEXINT Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment vote count isn't everything. The strength of arguments is what carries the most weight. Since I can't view the deleted article, can you provide refs used before the AfD closed as delete? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
________________________________________________________ Below the line are sources that I have found via a google search:
Second, there's the question of if Wikipedia should have any coverage of the NSA's alleged tracking of people's porn-surfing habbits. I think this is what the nominator's interested in. On this question, a number of potentially interesting sources were unearthed during the AfD. I think that none of these sources----certainly few of them----were cited in the article that got deleted, but it may well be that there's an article to be written based on them.
Does this intend we should overturn to keep? Well, what we'd actually be keeping is different text based on different sources, which would have a different title (not SEXINT as we've already established). So I'm struggling to see any point or purpose in overturning.
I think that what we should do is permit creation, in userspace, of a draft article about the NSA's internet porn-tracking activities. When the draft article's created, the nominator here is encouraged to come back to DRV for us to evaluate if it can be moved back to mainspace. I don't think it's necessary for us to disturb DangerousPanda's close in any way.?S Marshall T/C 00:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This was claimed to be orphaned, but the original uploader apparnetly later took steps to ensure it wasn't (the image still being deleted). I am requesting a review of this (and other deleted uploads of this uploader) as I feel that maybe policy has been applied a little to vigoursly leading to useful (and in some cases otherwise rarer) content being lacking without it being properly assed for Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
McCosh is a friend and would be eager for the image to be available to all via Wiki, El Rhazi gave verbal permission. I know verbal is not enough but if given the permission e-mail address he would send in his permission.Rodolph (talk)
The artist has had at least one charting album release in the UK and has a following across the world. He was a member of the band New Model Army for a period (Wikipedia New Model Army page ), he played with them and also had his own solo set. The band had a number of UK singles and album chart hits in the UK and elsewhere (Wikipedia band discography ). He has released at least 8 albums (released by record companies i.e. not personally produced). A video posted on YouTube showing a street performance of a track from his Purple Electric Violin Concerto album has received over 2 million views at today's date. Whilst YouTube views are not necessarily an indication of fame in this case the views and the comments made indicate that the artist has a broad following and is relatively well known. There is also a video of the artists performance on the Later With Jules Holland UK TV Show (Link to video: ). This is a major UK music show and has been broadcast for numerous years.
The deletion was based upon the artist not becoming the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, the original article was not the best (but certainly not the worst). I have contacted the administrator who oversaw the deletion. He or his representative responded, pointing to an album that charted in the UK, and suggesting that I begin a Deletion Review to restore the page. I will review the page and edit, if the article is reinstated, check for accuracy and edit where appropriate.
I very much hope that the page is reinstated to enable others to find information on Ed Alleyne-Johnson, as I did last night. I found the old Wiki page published elsewhere, with a comment regarding the deletion. Jamiller63 (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) -->
based on the reasoning given by the admin for deletion, that being that though there is more in favor of keeping the document that they were weak keep votes, that being said there was still greater keep votes that were not weak vs that of the delete votes, on top of that one of the developers of the game has sent their approval stating that they agreed with the information that was present and should be restoredNote here is the talk page with the admin: User_talk:Kelapstick#Tabletop_Simulator_wikipedia_page Baryaj (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe the closer of the AfD (TParis, whom I respect) in this instance interpreted/applied the consensus incorrectly. I discussed the matter with closer here, where you can read his rationale.
I don't think that the delete close was proper for each of the following 4 reasons. It should therefore be overturned. Any one of which would warrant a change to "no consensus" at minimum:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article (emphasis added)
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that only a unmarried article actually met GNG's criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the additional discussion required took place in the AfD. That discussion need not be repeated here, but it brought about the clear consensus opinion that Brander, whatever his achievements, was not per se notable. For this reason, TParis' close was not a "supervote", but a legitimate recognition of the sense of the discussion. BMK (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In point of fact, the applicant's representation of the discussion between himself and TParis departs from fact in several instances, so I would urge that his statement above should not be taken at face value, and that the TParis/Epeefleche talk page discussion should be read directly by whoever closes this review. BMK (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Overturn: Hello, I semi respect Tokyo's decision on the deletion. However, I believe that my page was deleted over harassment which is something that Wikipedia strongly discourages and does not allow. Following the talk page on User/BrandonCyrus, you can see the harassment that I'm talking about. Being called names such as a liar, accused of things, and just a bunch of crap was started which I simply asked for peace. When the page was first put up for deletion, it was because of an issue with citations. The user BGWhite stated that it should be constant within 7 days and had some issues. A user encouraged him to remove the PROD, which he agreed to and decided with the other user to add a template that stated it needed major fixes to meet Wikipedia's guides... Which I had agreed to and understood, and yes I was working on getting the citations and such. However, this impolite bias and absurd user listed it under an article for deletion, when I explained to him that everything was going to be worked out, that the other 2 authors and I talked it out he was all like "done" as if he understood, but then he got totally invested in the article and started hating and such. Tokyo didn't give me enough time to edit my page, as if it was BGWhite who gave me 7 days to do so. She deleted it under another administrators thought because she thought it was a good idea, to me it seems a little bias and confusing and yeah, as a normal human being you do receive offended. As I worked over 6 hours editing this page, just to see it deleted in 1 day is horrible... It was deleted before I could even cite my newer sources. I am respectfully asking that the page is to be reinstated, as the admin and I cannot come to a decision on it. Brandon Cyrus, in all faiths, is indeed an actor who has starred in Hannah Montana, High School Musical 2, The Hunger Games, and more. Even though, he has starred in a lot of little scenes, he is still indeed an actor and should be on Wikipedia, not for just the big parts, but for all the work he has done. I know you can't give pages to every actor, however, Brandon Cyrus has starred in over 20 different things, he is indeed a "famous persons" under Wikipedia's guidelines. He should be awarded and known for his hard work and not just called a little actor because he has guest starred in a few films, even though he guest starred he was invited over and over again as a main guest. Please help reinstate the page, as the page does meet notability, brought hundreds of views to Wikipedia, and will indefinitely be updated with newer sources as I promise. Please give me another chance. Also, the page was a stub, and stubs start from the bottom and make their way up, as they are intended to be small and updated in several weeks or months to it's full potential. Allow recreation: ---REFERENCES--- IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6060051/ (I know not to use IMDb, but if you were to use PRO, it states that everything, including the management was verified) TVDuck: http://www.tvduck.com/Brandon-Cyrus-celebrity-photos.html (small but uneditable by users) Personal Website: http://www.brandoncyrus.com/ All my sources to explain this current article. (I'm reviewing and getting more for Brandon_Cyrus Wikipage) Thanks! --Reigningbc (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tokyogirl79, I thought you referred me here to get another admins opinion? Instead of hurting my chances... --Reigningbc (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also admins, take note of this LEGAL rep who edits Wikipedia pages and has done thousands: "Keep I feel the subject meets WP:NACTOR (specifically: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") ? Solarra ? ? Talk ? ? ? Contribs ? 08:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)" --Reigningbc (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
What I don't get is how people assume IMDb is not a "trusted source", it's ONE OF THE LARGEST MOVIE DATABASES, theres nothing else like it on the internet! It really does VERIFY its submitted information, it is also MORE IN DEPTH if you get IMDbPRO. Read it's terms, etc, before justifying it as "Wikipedia". IMDb doesn't have an "edit" button located everywhere. You can't just submit something and get it automatically approved. It goes through a process FYI. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also under "Wikipedia:Notability" /Entertainers section/ it states "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Brandon Cyrus has millions of fans on Twitter, hundreds of thousands on Instagram, was also invited to the exclusive invite celeb only website WhoSay. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Brandon Cyrus has appeared in multiple films and television series, significant doesn't have to be only a main character. Significant characters can be extras and guests, just like on live shows. Theres numerous possibilities for the word 'significant'. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia bots and users can get profile pages then I highly suggest Brandon Cyrus gets to keep his own personal page, as his acts and entertainment career has done more significance, also when he posts his Wikipedia page he will be welcoming millions to the Wikipedia universe, engaging these users with Wikipedia, and these new users will either signal up, visit more pages, or even donate to the Wikipedia Foundation. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also "Notability is inherited" indeed it is inherited. He was welcomed to work with his family co stars. In this page: it states to keep. Which then states that it's also allowed if the person of the noted relative has their own work done. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also I can't cite things when other users removed 90% of my current work, just a little note. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
All of you are acting as if one article is going to kill Wikipedia! This is unbelievable. I didn't even have the time to do any fixes! Let me remind you the article was a STUB. It will be fixed! --Reigningbc (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll fix the page! Please trust me! I will add newer sources, I promise! Just give me a second chance! What about the fan clause??? He meets it! --Reigningbc (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The aforementioned is a startup company that currently has no want to heavily publicize in order to retain competitive advantage in the current market. However, said company's product is verifiable via the App Store and Google Play. In this particular situation, would the App Store and Google Play be considered reputable third-party sources to legitimize relevancy for this Wikipedia page? Several third-party online citable sources reviewing the product were presented additionally. The main purpose and urgency for a Wikipedia entry is not to promote, but to allow the general public to organically discover and learn about Coco through applicable searches for whatever means they may be pursuing.
Wikipedia presents itself as an easily accessible location rich with information about an assortment of topics, both popular and yet to be discovered. It's no doubt that it's likely the world's most popular resource that people go to to find information on anything and everything. As mentioned before, the goal of this entry is to merely inform and be discoverable by anyone interested in the relative topic. Fabulousaurus (talk ? contribs)
Hi Joe, I was wondering if it would be possible to discuss what steps need to be taken to reinstate the Coco (application) article and what can be done to prevent the prevent the Instanza (company) page from receiving a similar fate. It is currently marked as "being considered for deletion". Thank you in advance for your assistance. ? Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk ? contribs) 17:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and additional resources, Joe. The situation is a little difficult because this is a startup company that currently does not want to publicize. Is there any way possible to simply have an 'About Us' part published on Wikipedia? I can assure you that there is no intention for self promotion. Also, evidence can be provided that supports that this is a fully functioning live product on iOS and Android. Thanks for your help! ? Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk ? contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If I can provide third-party [reputable] references, would you be able to reinstate the page(s) so that I can edit the original article to include these new resources? Thanks again for your help and patience. ? Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk ? contribs) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
How can I go about submitting the links for your approval? Or, do they need your approval? Should I include them within this conversation? ? Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk ? contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Joe, I've located several third-party sites that have done reviews on the product. I would like to request the ability to edit the entry so that it can be relevant and also adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! ? Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.86.14 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at these: http://www.addictivetips.com/mobile/real-time-photo-text-voice-sharing-app-coco-voice-comes-to-android/ http://www.maketecheasier.com/coco-voice-messaging-for-ios-and-android/ http://www.androidstatic.com/coco-voice-is-a-social-walkie-talkie/ ? Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk ? contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Given that significant new information has come to light since the closing of this AfD, it is now justifiable to restore the article. The result of the AfD should properly have been interpreted as ?no consensus?, but instead the result decided was ?redirect to NHL Entry Draft?. In any event, the given reason of WP:TOOSOON no longer applies, and the 2016 NHL Entry Draft article should now be restored. Dolovis (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Was a well-sourced biography of a notable living person, who has chosen to remain in the public eye since the events that initially made her case newsworthy. In particular, she testified before Congress, had a law named after her, and continues to crusade on behalf of kid abuse victims. The uncommon and novel method by which she was initially identified is also of note. The article was apparently deleted without consensus or discussion by an administrator who was later indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for abuse of powers. Xn--gba (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Jabari_Parker#High_school_content I had noted that when the article got to 60 KB I would prune it back and I had been preparing a fork of the article. The version of the main article that I was paring back from was 192,522 bytes and 59289 characters of readable prose. As of April 19, 2014, Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) GAs were longer than 60KB according to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. I requested help paring the article down and then came the AFD. During the AFD, the main article was pared down while people were making arguments based on a rapidly changing version of the main article. When the debate opened, the main article was 150,741 bytes and 46,119 characters of readable prose. By the end of the AFD the main article was 82,247 bytes and 25,591 characters of readable prose. Due to the changing nature of the article some people argued that this content was a copy of content in the main article and that the content need only be on one place, while others argued that the content did not need to exist on wikipedia at all.
The article should be restored for the reasons above. If the readership feels that the dedicated high school content is useless, they won't navigate to it. However, if readers want to read more than is in the main article, it will be available. In terms that are appropriate for a WP:DRV, I believe the decision to close was incorrectly reasoned for the following reasons
"significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article?perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, especially the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Previously she was Indian pageant title holder, but after page deletion she was Bride of the World India 2013 and now she is participating Miss Asia Pacific World 2014 and representing to India and both pageants are International. I already has discussed with admin User:Lankiveil and suggested for WP:DRV. GKCH (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
A part from that Gusain is nominated for Mahatma Gandhi Samman 2014, an award for contribution and keeping the flag of India. GKCH (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like restore article and I don't understand decision of merge to Binda Group--Puccetto (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Page has been deleted twice. First time because created by a banned user. Fair enough. Person deleting was contacted when I wanted to create (I was not aware a deletion had previously been made) and raised no objection to me creating the page - I supplied a draft. On trying to create, it had been deleted again, so I contacted second person who deleted. I reproduce below records of both conversations which I believe cover my points. What I want to create is this: User:Emeraude/temp
(I'm not sure I really understand that last mention of redirect.) Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The group is the news (BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Fox News etc. etc.) I can see no reason why it is fully protected? At the very least it should be redirected to the group's chairman or to the prior party he founded. As noted above, we're an encyclopedia and it's frustrating that information on an active political group in an upcoming election is being censored. They have three candidates in the election. There's an article on the prior group the chairman founded. I can see how there might be some debate as to how BEST to cover the group, but obliterating it out of all existence and fully protecting the page is just an abuse. Another of the candidates in the party has an entire article on him in Vice. And I believe the third candidate has also been covered in the media. I get that the party is anti-immigration, anti-Islamic, and anti-European union, but we cover lots of unsavory topics. We're not ostriches and we're not SUPPOSED to be censored. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
#Denise #El #Rhazi
No comments:
Post a Comment