Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi, I was wondering if there was a way to userfy this page. I have an interest in the topic, and understand the article was deleted more than once (there was no second deletion discussion). Cheers! Ema--or (talk) 00:37, 31 October 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. |
|
The initial request for undeletion was submitted on October 3. The ensuing discussion can be seen here. Essentially, it was suggested I discuss this with the admin who initiated the original deletion of the article in question. I posted the request to his page, and this request can be seen here. There has been no response in over three weeks, which I am not criticizing; we all have our own reasons for not keeping up with Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I feel this is sufficient time to move forward and request that this process be forwarded to the next stage, bypassing Stifle's authorization and opening an actual discussion on undeleting the Wikipedia article Freefall (webcomic). I'm placing this back into contention for undeletion one more time, using this as my justification:
-- Modemac (talk) 19:54, 27 October 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. |
|
Category pages, such as this one, using {{Maintenance category}} and {{Wikipedia category}} are exempt from WP:CSD#C1 and require a CfD discussion; which this one just had as Category:Wikipedians by skin (and subcategories) that had an end result of keep. The administrator, VegaDark, ignored this exception, deleted the category, posted the main category and the rest of the sub-categories for deletion at CfD, and refuses to restore this maintenance category that should not have been deleted even if empty without a CfD resulting in delete. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:47, 26 October 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. |
|
Non admin closure when there was not clear consensus i.e. I was arguing for deletion and another editor was arguing to 'keep'. Discussion should either have been extended, or an admin should have closed the debate (I would have thought 'no consensus' at best). Sionk (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Sionk (talk) 17:17, 26 October 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. |
|
I believe the closing administrator erred when he closed this as "No consensus" as opposed to Delete. I like to give leeway to XfD closures even when I disagree with them, but this is an example of one that sets off too many of my red flags for a bad closure. On a pure headcount, it's five in favor of deletion and three to keep, which could have been a reasonable "No consensus" close had the rationales been equally compelling. That isn't the case here. One of the keep !votes was literally "it is just for fun. And it is fun." while another !vote was "Imagine my surprise when I clicked on this category and found MYSELF! That made my day." These are not reasons to be keeping a category on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that this category unquestionably and unarguably violates WP:USERCAT, the only guideline we have when it comes to user categories. We have consistently followed this guideline and as a result have made user categories directly correspond to helping build the encyclopedia. It is not uncommon for user category discussions to get participants with rationales like these, generally because people like to treat user categories as they would userboxes, where almost anything goes. Categories do not have a "userspace" like there is to address unencyclopedic stuff in the template space, however, so categories like these have traditionally been deleted (see here for quite a few examples). When I discussed this on the closing administrator's userpage, he stated that he discounted the above !votes as well as one of the delete !votes (that being because the !vote was copy/pasted across several other nominations). While discounting the above mentioned !votes was certainly proper, I think discounting a !vote because it was copy/pasted between a few other, similar CfDs was not proper unless that rationale was flawed. The rationale that was copy pasted was "doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think." This rationale goes hand in hand with WP:USERCAT and in my view should not have been discounted, making the totals based on headcount alone 5 in favor of deletion to 1 in favor of keeping. Now, let me address the final keep !vote, which the closing administrator apparently solely relied on towards keeping as the basis for the no consensus close. diff Please judge for yourself, but my reading of this boils down to "I've used it before, it does no harm, it doesn't bother anyone, and adds to enjoyment for editors to participate in Wikipedia." WP:NOHARM should cover most of that, while the only real argument I see here is that this category indirectly benefits the encyclopedia by making editors feel better when they are appreciated. There are numerous ways to do this on the encyclopedia without violating a guideline, such as barnstars, the "thank" feature on edits, and other ways. Someone could even put a "This user is awesome" userbox on their page and it would be perfectly fine. User categories, however, have a higher standard that requires the category to be linked to collaboration on the encyclopedia. There's absolutely nothing that these users share in common or likelihood of shared interest in a particular subject, making it completely unencyclopedic. Additionally, if "Let's keep this because editors will enjoy the recognition, which indirectly benefits the encyclopedia" argument prevails, that sets a very dangerous precedent for future deletion discussions. Do we want the category system go to back to the old ways of "anything goes"? Should we keep a mainspace article on an editor who was otherwise non notable because having a mainspace article improved their morale and enjoyment of the project? Of course not. Based on numbers and particularly based on strength of arguments I think this falls outside the usual leeway an administrator should have during a closure, and that this should be Overturned to deletion VegaDark (talk) 03:34, 26 October 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. |
|
Result contradicts consensus set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices, and discussion did not contain enough viewpoints. Recommend a relisting with wider opinions from those involved with articles for other operating systems. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:40, 25 October 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. |
|
Copyright permission given by author. Deleted with no discussion. Peasant in Suit (talk) 14:31, 25 October 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 mfd was speedily closed as keep, and I believe the speedy close to be the wrong call. The reason provided in the close, and elaborated on at User talk:Edokter#Signpost quote template, was that as a "special" template, this should have first been discussed at the signpost. Though I believe that that would have been the preferable approach, I don't think having a pre-discussion there would be necessary for a good faith MfD nomination - and that even whether or not it is in fact preferable is open for debate. As such, I believe the speedy close should be overturned, and a full discussion should be had. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 23 October 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. |
|
i am aware that the newly added data sounded as promotional not as Africell's achievements through the years. I didn't respect the rules. Adding it was a mistake. However, Africell had its credibility on wikipedia, and i suppose it has the right to be restored; knowing that i will always stick to wikipedia's rules and regulations. 37.209.251.119 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 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. |
|
The page should be undeleted because I am the copyright owner and creator of the written content on the page you suspected to be where we copyrighted from (link: http://nurkhan.com/). I have also sent an email to permissions at wikipedia following their instructions to donate the copyrighted materials. And I also placed {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page. Matte finish wiki (talk) 19:57, 21 October 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. | |||||
Achievement Hunter is a large, popular and growing company. 2+ million on YouTube alone and require their own article to cleanup the Rooster Teeth article. It is suggested that Draft:Achievement Hunter be placed there instead EoRdE6 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 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. |
|
I'm not sure that I need to bring my concerns here, since the page I would like to re-create is not salted, and my userspace draft for reinstatement is sufficiently developed that it would be ineligible for a G4. But I am being cautious in rolling out changes. The article for 7 Angels 7 Plagues was nominated for deletion on September 23, and garnered two votes for delete, as an article with promotional wording about a non-notable band with no references. The decision to delete, I imagine, must have looked rather uncontroversial, and so an admin closed it as delete; I did not have the page on my watchlist, and found out it was deleted when the article title was mass-unlinked (and so did not !vote in the proceedings). As it happens, there was a rather substantial article published about this band in Milwaukee's Shepherd Express on September 24th, which was (not unreasonably) missed entirely by commenters in the deletion discussion. Yet there were also several pieces of media coverage of the band which came up in internet searches or which had been added to the band's album articles, which were not considered. I requested a userfied copy of this article at WP:REFUND, removed the promotional language, and rewrote the body of the text with links to sources. The Shepherd Express article is a major retrospective of the band's influence (they broke up over ten years ago); additionally, I found media coverage by Allmusic (biography and a short album review), HM (an album review in a major heavy-metal magazine), and Exclaim! (international media coverage). Additionally, members of this group went on to play in notable outfits such as Misery Signals, Dead to Fall, and The Damned Things. That substantiates the band according to WP:MUSIC bullets 1 and 6, and probably 7 as well. My userspace draft is at User:Chubbles/7 Angels 7 Plagues. I believe I have done enough to show the band's notability and would like to move the rewritten article to general space. The deleting admin (User:Joe Decker) seems to be away for an extended period and has not commented on my draft. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 19 October 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. |
For several reasons, this comes almost a month after the deletion of the above, including the fact that I've been busy doing other things. I do not want to challenge any decision, as I will probably lose again (sooner or later), I just want to make some general points and observations. I found it strange that the 1998 article was deleted, despite the fact that it was not explicitly discussed or mentioned (outside of the act of nomination itself) in the nomination discussion. I think it deserved its own discussion, because of this. However, again I know this would never actually occur, now that the article is lost and eventual deletion was probably inevitable in any case, given the strength of the consensus. It's beginning to seem to me that such articles are simply not politically desirable in this Wikipedia (such as the deletion discussion here). More so, it being a deletion discussion, no attempt was made by anyone to reciprocate my efforts to engage in a debate, or answer my clarification requests. Although the future looks bleak.... I suppose that I will follow the advice given by ChrisTheDude and SmokeyJoe, and try to merge them into the respective tournament articles. I believe that these controversies are often a source and driver for rule changes within the modern game, so it is important to document them. These articles will return - you have been warned!! Asoccer maniac (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The deleter, Wikipedia name: "Secret", said that a book source (The Commissioner: A True Story of Deceit, Dishonor, and Death by Bill Keith) is "self-published." It is published by Pelican Publishing Company of Gretna, Louisiana. "Secret" erased my comment without a reply when I informed him on October 18 that The Commissioner is NOT self-published. The article overall has various sources, two books, newspapers, oral history, etc. I was surprise it was challenged in the first place. I believe the article was deleted without it being fully read, as the final copy was put together only in the last few days. The comments were about evenly divided, pro- and con. So the deleter made an error in judgment when he downplayed one of the book sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:29, 18 October 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. |
|
There were some poor attempts to create the article by marketing guys with no respect to rules. It was reasonable to delete this spam. However I suppose that X-Cart has sufficient grounds to be restored. I prepared a little draft. There are only facts and no marketing bullshit. NB: I must declare my conflict of interests because my friends from X-Cart asked me (as a skilled editor) to help them Gruznov (talk) 00:44, 17 October 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. |
|
A user (Graeme Bartlett) deleted our page as he thought we had broken a copyright agreement based on this publication: http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf. I firstly contacted Graeme Bartlett explaining that we did not infringe on any copyright agreements since we own the copyright to this document, thus asking if the original content could be put back. He then told me to contact the OTRS team to release our ownership of the copyrighted material to Wikipedia. As authors of the original content that Graeme was concerned about, we then obtained written evidence from the publishers of the Pdf (http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf) confirming that we own the copyright to it. Afterwards, since we own the copyright to this content, we have signed the standard Wikipedia Copyright Release agreement to release our copyright for publication on Wikipedia. After verifying this with the OTRS team (Matthew Dann), I was told to apply here to have our page "Smart Energy System" restored. Dave1898 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 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. |
|
Deleting administrator cited as reasons for deletion arguments given by Wikipedia members that are prima facie not valid. For example: "As pointed out by Chillum, the available sources lists/discuss events, but do not address the generalized topic of "kidnapping in Islamism" as such." But the article includes entire books and academic articles devoted to Kidnapping in Islamism. Administrator claims to have been impressed by arguments brought by DGG, who argues that: "What seems to be intended by using the word "Islamism" is an attempt to make a negative implication about Islam as a religion without actually saying so." This is untrue, "Islamism" is a term of art applied to a specific, radical political movement. DGG: "Second, nothing here is unique to Islamic groups: kidnapping by terrorists is a fairly common part of their general practice. It's the result of the logic of terrorism, not the logic of religion." Untrue since multiple Islamist groups (Boko Haram, ISIS) have published formal theological justifications of kidnapping based on (admittedly radical, and minority) interpretations of Shaaria. It is, moreover, unclear whether the closing administrator encountered the arguments given by several Wikipedia editors who offered careful arguments for keeping the article. ShulMaven (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a just a search for a few minutes and is used by the Guardian,The Telegraph,Washington Post ,CNN and BBC.
Middle East Press
Even newspapers Published from the Middle East use the term Islamists and Newspapers like the Saudi Gazette published from Jeddah go through Censorship in Saudi Arabia and even articles from Wikipedia are censored and blocked if the term Islamist was even objectionable in the remotest way to Islam it would have been censored in Saudi Arabia .The Other newspapers Published from the Gulf will be trouble for any writing against Islam and this term is not seen even remotely against Islam .CNN calls Al-Qaeda and ISIS as Islamist groups Islamist rivals in Syria find a common enemy in 'crusaders' coalition and the BBC lists Islamic Militant Groups North Africa here with groups like Boko Haram and Ansaru among them and also here.BBC ,CNN ,Guardian,Washington Post, host of other WP:RS sources use this term to describe the various groups. and even Middle East newspapers do so.The closure statement this is WP:OR is clearly questionable while some refer to groups by name like Boko Haram some use more Generic Term Islamists to sum all of them and it is attributable to a reliable, published sources like Guardian,The Telegraph,Washington Post ,CNN and BBC. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:16, 16 October 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. |
|
I have tried discussing the matter with the admin that enforced the deletion ( link), and have been told to come here to resolve the matter. I have no clue why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place,(except for for non good faith reasons). Notable secondary sources describe ADCC as:
ADCC championship accolades are notable and widely used:
Looking at their anual tournaments wikipedia articles (which are also now nominated for deletion as a consequence to the main article), most of the winners (Gold, silver, Bronze) in all the different weight class are notable individuals that have their own wikipedia articles example 1, example 2, example 3 Deleting this article has also been a disruption to articles linking to it. Bigbaby23 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC) I have temporarily undeleted the article for the purpose of this DRV. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Subject of an independent article/documentary: see above, and consider if it was the style/art and the school/organisation was an example. Long, externally verifiable history Large number of students Regular or large competitive successes in inter-school/ organisation tournaments where the style is notable. Multiple wide spread sites: an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point." Is there a link to the page where the discussion has been moved to? As it appears someone has claimed to relist the article and just deleted the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.164.189 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 October 2014
|
| 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 following post has been copied from the article subject's post on the deleting admin's talk page. User:Jenks24 hasn't editted since mid September, so I'm bring it here for others to decide. I avoid AFDs on academics, so I have no opinion on the notability or not of the article, and not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article either. I will notify SamJaneB that the discussion has been opened up here.) The-Pope (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Hi, Samantha Brennan here. I was just alerted to the fact that my wikipedia page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samantha_Brennan, was taken down for not meeting notability standards for academics. I'm totally new to Wikipedia, just starting to learn how it works and I'm interested in learning how to get involved. I didn't write my page and I was interested in editing it but then went to look and saw it wasn't there. In my own case, I don't know if any of this helps but I'm also Vice President of the Canadian Philosophical Association and President next year, [20] And co-editor and co-founder of Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, [21] And I've been features a few times on Australian Broadcasting Corporation, [22] And I've been on CBC Ideas, [23] I'm probably best known for my work on children's rights--see citations to my paper on children's rights [24]--and my work on feminist ethics, again see [25]. External sources, see also [26] And Ms Magazine listed me as one of the top feminist fitness bloggers, [27] though that's related to my blog [28] Cheers, Sam SamJaneB (talk) 14:10, 10 October 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. |
|
The deleted page is Mesut Kurtis. He is a Macedonian of Turkish origins singer who has three music albums and sings in Arabic, English, and Turkish. He has a Wiki page in Arabic and Turkish and he has 798,000 results on google (in English only). His albums are being sold on itunes and Amazon.com, and he is giving concerts in France and UK in October 2014. Last music clip was featuring artist Maher Zain. Why is his page prevented from creation again then? Please note that the administrated who protected the page on wiki is no longer available here. Halslomy (talk) 13:27, 9 October 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. |
|
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J04n&oldid=628619245 Hello. A little while ago you closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kardashian_Index with a decision to delete. You said "The examination and comments made by Bondegezou most convinced me to close as delete." who had argued that it was just a one-off joke article, never to be calculated at all, and was briefly mentioned in new sources before interest died. But I've just noticed at sciencemag.org that was published today a new article entitled "Twitter's science stars, the sequel". It goes on to say: And now we’re doubling down on our recent list of Twitter’s 50 most popular researchers with a revision that names 100 of the most followed scientists on the social media platform. (See below for that list, or download our updated spreadsheet, which marks the additions in red.) The first list—in case you missed it last month—was part of a story examining the use of Twitter by scientists, prompted by the furor that had erupted over the so-called Kardashian Index (K-index). This metric, whose inventor says he meant it in fun, compared a researcher’s number of Twitter followers with the number of citations to his or her academic papers. It goes on to list the top 100 K-Index scientists, complete with photos and details. So there seems to be momentum continuing over the Kardashian Index, which was originally published in Genome Biology on 30 July 2014. In light of the continuing interest, do think that perhaps the AfD should be restarted? --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:57, 6 October 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. |
|
WP:NAC was inappropriate in this case. While a pretty strong supermajority did support keeping, there were other options on the table besides deletion, such as retargeting. Keeping and retargeting are not mutually exclusive outcomes, and some (not all) of the keep !votes might also support retargeting. The closer explicitly noted ignoring some !votes entirely; that is not a judgment call non-admins are supposed to make. Given the length and complexity of this discussion, I feel closure by an admin would be more appropriate. NYKevin 23:51, 6 October 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. |
|
Hoax, per WP:CSD#G3 status cannot be verified yet since. Citation stating it was a hoax points to an article in an entirely different scope. I have discussed it with RHaworth and was referred here. Please also note that from research, I found (from an unverifiable source)that the article was edited on Monday 21st July, 2014 by one Greg Abdul in order to distort the information in the article. We'll need the article before the one edited by Greg Abdul restored. This would help to locate the original citations in the article so that I can put the article in proper perspective. Thanks Aijosh (talk) 19:03, 6 October 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 page looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2011, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:D:B480:ED2:607E:F0AD:58D4:817E (talk) 18:08, 5 October 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. |
|
Back in 2009 this article was deleted over a lack of coverage. A month or two ago someone came to WP:REFUND asking for the article's re-creation. I ended up making a copy of the article and asked RHaworth to approve the userspace copy I'd made. I was pointed to either AfC or deletion review and the copy was moved to Draft:The Heir Chronicles. It's been a while and I figured that it'd be faster to just run it through deletion review than to have it stagnate in AfC, which is already overrun with submissions. Plus I'm just impatient. The sourcing is greatly improved over the previous version and the series as a whole has received coverage in journals, newspapers, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
&Speedy Move to mainspace. Actually, it should never have been deleted; the closing was in my opinion a clear error, ignoring the existence of substantial published reviews and NYT bestseller status. This was back in 2009; I don;t think it would be deleted today. (the reason this might come here is the main title was protected; but any admin could have moved it on their own. I have added a good number of drafts to mainspace when the previous article had been deleted, and in a few cases, protected. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 6 October 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. |
|
Looking at the discussion page, I thought that I made a very strong case to keep my file. The two users who were in favor of deletion did not take into account any of my convincing arguments, and then ignored the last point I made, which I had believed to be a slam dunk for it to be kept because it tied together all of my points. The file is used as the primary on air identifier for the program in question. The other users repeatedly brought up that it could not be found online thus they did not believe that it could possibly be used on air. The fact is that CBS does not use its current on-air logos online, a practice I cannot explain but is nonetheless the reality. I told the two users to watch any PGA Tour on CBS broadcast from 2014 to witness the logo's use, to which one user retorted "I don't get international stations", which would seem to me like it would disqualify that user from taking part in the argument about a program he cannot even watch. Thank you for hearing my appeal, I am sorry for appearing so frustrated, but it is a frustrating situation. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 02:30, 5 October 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. |
|
I am requesting that the decision be overturned as delete. I've discussed this with the administrator at User talk:xaosflux and given it a lot of subsequent thought, and I'm not in any way criticizing the administrator, but I just think that this is a difficult case that requires consideration of policy, rather than simply looking at !votes, and I ask editors here to look beyond the surface. (By the way, I do not think that relisting would be helpful, in that we would just get more comments that are entrenched on one "side" or the other.)
|
| 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. | |||
|
Deleted 2 Years ago, the event has since become very notable for being the first event in a seven year deal between the UFC and FOX. Also loads of sources are now available that wasnt back when it was deleted, so the article is now notable and very sourced. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Here is a copied discussion i had with am administrator:
Are you in the right place?
This wouldn't pass through that as this was deleted through the article for deletion process. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
, SPortsillustrated/cnn and Chigaco Sun times. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
And, the more I look at Lukejordan02's edits, the more obvious it is that JonnyBonesJones is back once again. Blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 5 October 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. |
|
The draft was deleted by RHaworth under G5. It was last edited and submitted by User:GjonPreni. See User talk:GjonPreni#After discussion with this user for Fluffernutter's summary of the account's history; the short of it is that GjonPreni's former account is (now-blocked) User:Seventhegeneral, but GjonPreni was unblocked after the accounts were connected and is not currently blocked. Thus G5 does not seem to apply. Personally I'd have preferred a low-key resolution but RHaworth preferred to send me to User:RHaworth/moans#DRV, which brings me here since I don't intend to wheel-war. Huon (talk) 19:14, 1 October 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. |
|
Article has been userfied and improved
Can the article be moved to mainspace? CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 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 was deleted despite what appears to me to be an unambiguous consensus to keep it. It was relisted twice due to lack of consensus, after which four editors voted keep. Believing the result was clear, I participated minimally in the discussion, merely endorsing another editor's position. After it was deleted, I addressed my concerns to the closing admin, Drmies, who suggested that I appeal the decision here. He explained that he found the "keep" arguments flimsy, but as only one editor voted "delete" and the comments of the six "keep" voters included what I perceive to be legitimate arguments which were dismissed without explanation, it's my feeling that his decision amounted to overriding the discussion rather than interpreting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |