Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September
30 September 2020[edit]
29 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm asking for this to be reviewed as a matter of process as I don't think one can properly say there was a consensus in favour of deleting this article, at worst it was no consensus and should have been kept for that reason:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The deleting admin, David Gerard, misapplied WP:G4. The new article is substantially different from the deleted version, and the reason for the prior deletion no longer applies. All crypto-related and interview-based references were removed, and the subject was recently substantially and independently covered in The Wall Street Journal. Following 18 months of Bloomberg, Fox, Royal Gazette and other coverage, and the subject surely achieves WP:GNG. Nixie9✉ 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was quickly removed for publicity. I unsubscribed on the article discussion page when I saw the deletion template, but no one gave any explanations and the article was deleted. There was no advertisement in the text, if the nominee did not like some of the phrases, it will not be difficult to delete them. The article is significant, please consider its restoration. Thanks. Namerst (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was published when the company was young and failed the notability test. I can't see the history of this article, but as far as I understand, it was poorly written without sufficient citations. The company grow significantly since then and is now considered to be a List_of_unicorn_startup_companies raised over 600 million USD. The company has multiple significant, independent, and reliable coverage by the media, which makes it suitable candidate to join the article space again. I would like to work on this article and fix it so it would be able to return to the article space. As far as I understand MER-C deleted it and marked it as covert advertising. Another user, Effifuks, has recently asked to recover the article. This user works for the company and MER-C has raised concerns that the article would not be reliable and independent. I also understand the problem with covert advertising and using Wikipedia as a platform for this. However, the company is now significant and has a lot of coverage, so I believe it makes sense to consider it again. Full disclosure, I virtually know Effifuks, as I listen to his Podcast, but another than that I'm not connected in any way shape or form to Next Insurance, and I have no personal or commercial/financial interest to help. Delbarital (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to understand the closing admin's decision to arrive on "The notability of this organization (per WP:GNG) was not adequately demonstrated. Consensus is to delete." Effectively except for the nominator @331dot: with their crusade of "Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works", none of the other delete !votes adequately supplied their reasoning with policy/evidence or answered subsequent questions.
|
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 page is salted due to inappropriate recreation attempts however as page ultras show there are currently precedents for this form of article for supporter clubs and it is unclear to me that the draft article should be salted which is the point at issue here. to quote the closer from their talk page (which I visited for another matter): "Please take this request to WP:DRV". I note the MFD nom. claim's that this can never be an article because of previous deletion discussions" is a WP:CRYSTAL extrapolation for a current entity is problematic. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Please go through this User:AngusWOOF.Shahoodu (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
AFC and DRV reviewers, what do you think? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 September 2020[edit]
23 September 2020[edit]
Deletion review is not appropriate
this record label is functioning, thriving and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiobulb (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
22 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
How in the world is this a no consensus close? If uncontested AFDs are no consensuses now, that may need to be rethought ... Hog Farm Bacon 14:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
While I understand the rationale behind a NC close, I felt the policy based arguments favored a close of 'delete'. While some of the 'keep' !votes were well articulated and thought out, others cited other stuff, pageviews, other WP:ATA, and sources of dubious reliability to establish notability. While there were two very vocal keep !voters (both involved in the topic area) it seems to me that the uninvolved rough consensus was to delete. Coming here after myself, Rhododendrites, and Atsme reached out to Mazca on their talk page. I have great respect for Mazca, and the obvious effort they put into closing a contentious discussion, but I would favor an Overturn to 'delete'. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
LATimes. I don't do anything disingenuously or in bad faith. Your PAs are not welcome, and I am certainly not interested in your OR, what you are advocating or your misinformation. Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
20 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
WP:BADNAC - a rather controversial close. An administrator should handle this controversial close. I did ask the editor to reopen the AfD. I suggest speedy Overturn badnac and allow the AfD to proceed. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 September 2020[edit]
18 September 2020[edit]
17 September 2020[edit]
16 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Possible inappropriate CSD:U5; possibly especially serious as may have attempted to declare a user COI on the page. Was blue button contested prior to deletion at User talk:Pmatthews21#Contested deletion but contestation was not addressed by closer. Discussion with closer on their talk page section Deletion of user page Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was caught in a mass deletion of pages with information taken from IBM's primary sources, but it documented a code page discussed ONLY in secondary sources. It could use additional citations beyond the Marist Pipelines web page, but it's information that was notable enough to make its way from SHARE discussions back into an IBM product eventually. Not R (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (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 review To all administrators, I have requested a deletion review on Alan Milliner, an Australian football referee who had been an international referee until 2017 upon his retirement, and has referred the Hyundai A-League matches for that matter. They have officially decided to delete that page, which I would take it easy on it, and has completely come up to my mind to ask for a deletion review. Because if he didn’t pass the GNG, why did he exist? And if the sources are not reliable enough, how come there is an official source from FIFA , to the AFC, to the Hyundai A-League and Football Queensland (on behalf of his retirement)? Even that, how can’t secondary sources cannot be accepted as if I just found the best way I can find, even if Wikipedia encourages the content to be neutral? If anyone decides that final say on that regard, I will respect the decision. With that, I am ready for this closer review. Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I asked the deleting administrator Stifle "I'm surprised at your close here. "Notability is not inherited" is an often used phrase, but that doesn't actually imply deletion of an article; what the relevant part of the guideline does say (immediately afterwards) is "However, person A may be included in the related article on B.". Additionally, the final "keep" !vote in the AfD was a well-thought out argument and suggested "merge" as a compromise, which I would agree with. Can we relist this instead?" and got directed here. My preferred decision would be to relist the AfD for another week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
13 September 2020[edit]
12 September 2020[edit]
11 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I recently had six AfDs relisted in a DRV from August 24. At the time those records were relisted, 2 additional records were deleted under the same rationale. The title article here (Hruz) and Robert D. Sundby (AfD) both fall into the same category and suffer fromt he same flawed deletion rationale as the previous six articles. These are judges of an important statewide court, but their articles were nominated for deletion because the judges of the court are elected in one of four regional districts and there was apparently confusion over whether this makes them minor judges. Please relist and I'll work to expand all of their articles with additional information. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Accidentally created duplicate category page of 'Alumni of Brunel University London' B Enkay 45 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2020 (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. |
Andrew Fraser is a notable person who had a major influence on the Australian law world. He defended some of Australia's most infamous people. It is important that information about him differs from his television show Killing Time as facts were dramatised and names were substituted. Georges (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Also here is the proposed edit will be made to the page if it becomes un-merged. User:Geo3012/sandbox - Georges (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 September 2020[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I’ve been working on this draft after finding it curious that this page didn’t already exist. Came across the issue on the Insight Partners page and was surprised given their role in exposing some pretty big name security vulnerability issues. I ran with it, thinking it was an appropriate article to create, especially coming across other pages in the same arena that are seemingly less notable. I didn’t realize the long deletion history on this draft until it was ready to go. Honestly I probably wouldn’t have even given this one the time had I seen that first. But since it’s already been done, thought it would be worth giving this another shot. The company has a lot of coverage and has been involved in high profile security issues (Amazon Alexa, Google and Samsung smartphones, Tinder (app), etc.). From what I could see, it’s obvious the past deletion issues were from COI editors, and explains why it was even attempted before they actually reached a notable status - it should be noted that all of these high profile issues have come out since the last attempts that I can see on this draft, and I believe these tip the notability scale. Given the history, it’s sure to come up, so I want to put it out there that I have no vested interest in this company, other than the fact that I have a curiosity for cybersecurity. I’m requesting to have the draft reviewed (currently in my sandbox: User:Metromemo/sandbox) and the lock removed on this page if others agree that it meets WP:GNG. Metromemo (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 September 2020[edit]
7 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 24 Deletion Review for Paul C. Gartzke was intended as Deletion Review for all six of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges whose articles had been deleted in a span of a few days. The rationale used for all six was the same. Please restore or relist Jennifer E. Nashold (referenced here) along with Rachel A. Graham (AfD), Michael T. Sullivan (AfD), Daniel L. LaRocque (AfD), and Paul Lundsten (AfD). Happy to redo the discussion if needed. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 September 2020[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I asked the editor who closed it yesterday (at User_talk:Tone#Could_you_reopen_and_relist_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khemed?) to reopen this with "An identical article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Theodoros was just redirected. I think this would benefit from more discussion, I haven't noticed this AfD and I'd like to comment on it; one keep argument is invalid and the other lists sources that IMHO don't discuss the subject sufficiently. With 2 delete votes (given the default one from tne nom) and 2 keep votes this should have been at best closed as no consensus, and best, it should be just relisted. Also ping nominator User:Goustien." but they have not replied despite being active, so here we go. To be clear, the invalid argument I refer to is the second one which is a combination of WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for my response to the first keep vote, the sources cited seem to contain only passing discussion of the topic that does not go into any non-plot related discussion outside a sentence or two about the name of the entity. And yes, I get ahead of myself here, this is del rev. Anyway, two on the side of delete vs two keep votes (one pretty bad), this shouldn't have been closed yet. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:26, 6 September 2020 (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. |
In closing the deletion discussion Joe Roe stated that the Delete camp had presented a stronger argument. I must object to this since more than half of the Delete votes came before my complete rewrite of the article with scholarly sources, which addressed the topic in a neutral manner. As Joe noted, the vote was more or less evenly split, with (unproven) claims of canvassing by the Delete camp. Of the users who don't usually contribute to Balkan-related articles, four voted Keep and three voted Delete. So I'm not sure how the consensus was to delete this article. The outcome should have been no consensus. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
See discussion. The deletion requests generally didn't receive the attention they needed. Note: mass restoring files is easier with Restore-a-lot. Load it on Wikipedia by copying the section from User:Alexis Jazz/common.js to your common.js. The above list was made by User:Mdaniels5757. Pinging @Govvy, GiantSnowman, Ymblanter, Black Kite, Jonteemil. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Pinging @Davey2010, Mazca, Awesome Aasim, SixFourThree, Marchjuly Pinging @Fastily, Swarm, Masem — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 September 2020[edit]
3 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It was concluded in 2006 that there would be notable sources used to help validate the pages existence. Since then, nothing has come to light. The page still reads like promotional material and what little notable content on the page cannot be validated with independent sources. User:R.schneider101 00:40, 3 September 2020 (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. |
Obviously no importance. This is not true! Although only internet pages mention Facility 4101, Tower 93 or its German name Anlage 4101, Mast 93, this object is unique and remarkable as it was according to all available sources, the only ever realized structure, which was used as electricity pylon and as observation tower. I think because of this unity, it is worth to make an article on it. Please translate for it the page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlage_4101,_Mast_93 into English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vakarel (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was correctly deleted in 2018 for failing WP:NHOCKEY; the page now passes WP:NHOCKEY #1 "Played one or more games in the National Hockey League, Czech Extraliga, Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League, or the Swedish Hockey League, a top-level Canadian amateur league prior to 1909, the Soviet Championship League, the Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League or the World Hockey Association" per [26] Joeykai (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 September 2020[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
it has significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; I don't know why the page was removed , it has independent and reliable sources and + new sources have been added since the page was deleted I hope you will take an eye into consideration and take back the page Knowing that the information and sources were discussed before the creation page, and it was accepted before here https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User_talk:LadyofShalott/Archive_31#Writer_and_Journalist_and_Translator - User:LadyofShalott User:Muboshgu
--Amer Bin Omar (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Two English wiki administrators reviewed the page and the draft was previously corrected by User:LadyofShalott and forwarded for the article because every day he has a reliable sources in Arabic ,English, Turkish , and soon the official agency in Turkey, Anadolu Agency, will talk about Ali. Amer Bin Omar (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Arabic and Turkish? Amer Bin Omar (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Amer Bin Omar (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Orient News Syria TV (Turkey) Yeni Akit Daily Sabah TRT World Gunboyu gazetesi Shehab News Agency Arageek:İstiklal
--أحمد بن عمر الزهراني (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |