Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September
30 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There are some reliable source that have in-depth coverage of "Chinazi" this term [1][2]. And I think "Chinazi" this article is sufficient for ]
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 September 2019
28 September 2019
27 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
My page existed for decades when I was a Biochemistry Professor who was page 1 banner headline of USA Today for Vitamin C dosage discovery. It was removed for unknown reasons. It reappeared when I looked about 3 months ago, and now has been removed again. I have begun a company based on my research, and have created 2 nutritional supplements likely to prevent age-associated diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's, and would love to assist/advise on updating the page to save lives and fortunes in medical costs. Rocordman (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am requesting a review of the deletion of this article as I believe it deserves a place in the English Wikipedia (it exists in 8 other languages). It was deleted following a second nomination, only 6 months after the first nomination, the result of which was keep. The main contention for its existence seemed to be a lack of sources and its ability to pass AVN hall of fame in 2018,[6] essentially the oscars of pornography. If that doesn't make a performer notable enough to warrant inclusion, then I don't know what does. I've also been able to gather some more sources regarding his bio, particularly since his recent death which can be used to improve the article. GlassBooks (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC) ]
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 September 2019
24 September 2019
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am requesting to overturn the decision to speedy delete WP:COI - you can find out after reading the page why :)) FabianLange (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2019 (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 and the other articles listed below were deleted as G5 by WP:IAR should apply in this case, and that's a policy too. Barkeep themself had difficulty giving a reason that this deletion actually improved Wikipedia, other than to say that's the policy, which really isn't sufficient by itself. Regardless, the fact that multiple editors expressed concerns show the deletion was not uncontroversial, which is required by any speedy criterion, G5 included.
Additionally, I am including the following deleted articles in this DRV for the same reason: Smartyllama (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Additionally, I am adding the following articles which were deleted by Liz for the same reason. Although it is late in the process, the same logic obviously applies regardless of who deleted it so they should be included as well. Smartyllama (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I’d like to put the deletion of Template: Infoshops to a review. I’ve already spoken to the closer and to be clear I voted keep. Here’s what I’d like reviewed:
So I want to review this deletion on two grounds as per WP:DRVPURPOSE, namely consensus incorrectly interpreted and procedural errors, stated above. To be clear I’d like the decision to be overturned, then I can work on improving the template. Thanks for any answer. Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC) ]
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was recently speedy deleted according to WP:CSD#A7, but as a food item it does not fit this criteria for deletion (it is not an individual, animal, organization, web content, or event). The deleting admin has been contacted, but he is essentially inactive at Wikipedia and has not responded. If this page is to be deleted, it needs to go through AFD instead. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC) ]
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 September 2019
20 September 2019
19 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
"3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
User:Makeandtoss - Question - Are you asking to Draftify a new version of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted because discussion from more than 2 years, maybe at this time he didnt have notability, or the article is just bad. but now this director he is most famous music video director in arab world, in this 2 years he also directed movie, tv series, tv show, I put many english sources in article, and the arabic sources is more than hundred, I will put this sources again here if you want, and if you still have issues with notability, then actualy there are article for music directors had less notability than him, I recreate because I wonder that he still didnt have article here This some sources in English confirm his notability:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 September 2019
16 September 2019
15 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted as a copyright violation ( WP:F9) but I'm challenging it because it does not meet the threshold of originality to be considered a non-free work. It's just words with a few holes in them, which is not original or unique enough to render it a non-free image. Per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces, "typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States." JOEBRO64 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC) ]
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 September 2019
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
improvement Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
13 September 2019
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Adjohnbrock (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly for this deletion. The category was deleted as part of a broader deletion of Category:Anarchists by occupation and its sub-categories. But aside from the nominator, everyone who supported deletion of the other categories said that Category:Anarchist writers was an exception and should be retained. In other words, the actual consensus was to retain Category:Anarchist writers and delete the others. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 September 2019
10 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This portal was deleted with only two !votes based on the mistaken assertion that the portal had been abandoned since 2012 and had no maintainer. No notification was given to me, the maintainer; apparently, a notification was misdirected to the portal's original creator, who has not been active since 2007, rather than myself. Given that the basis for the deletion was factually incorrect, this falls under WP:NOQUORUM , which may also place it under item 1: "someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly".
Upon undeletion I will promptly fix the issues with outdated information raised in the deletion discussion, which are easily fixed. This request includes Portal:Nanotechnology and its subpages, and Template:Nanotech selected and its tracking categories. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mark Schierbecker: also pinging original deletion nominator. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This review is not a reflection on the judgement of the closing admin. The closing admin properly closed the AfD based on the content of the discussion. I would like to review the result of the AfD because since the close of the AfD I found new arguments for a keep that I was unaware and would like a second bite at the apple with this new argument. WP:ENT at the time of the AfD and could not bring it up during the discussion. Banana Republic (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC) ]
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to see if the deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg can be reversed. I raised the issue with User:Fastily earlier this year, but didn't pursue it further at the time. (User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#FfD deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg The deletion discussion is here. This image was in use at Veil of Veronica, and it does not look like there was any attempt to notify editors of that page that the image was being discussed. One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it. Besides saying that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible", User:Magog the Ogre wrote in the deletion discussion "it appears this is a copyright violation". I'm not sure on what his basis was for the statement that the image appeared to be a copyright violation. Photographs that simply reproduce two-dimensional works that are old enough to be public domain are themselves public domain under US copyright law and are allowed by Wikipedia's rules. I ended up here as a result of a question from another user at Talk:Veil of Veronica#Rome Veronica image.--Srleffler (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 September 2019
6 September 2019
5 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was listed twice in a short period of time. The first discussion had about 3 opinions for keep and 5 for delete, and was resolved as no consensus. The second discussion only 3 months later was even briefer and bascially a re-!vote on the previous discussion with no real new information or change in opinions. This time there were 3 keeps and only 4 deletes. This however was interpreted as a consensus for delete, with the closing admin dismissing the keep opinions through their personal interpretation of policy. ed g2s • talk 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Marcus Stead was subjected to a prolonged campaign of online abuse by Welsh nationalist campaigners on Twitter. They were openly discussing his Wikipedia page and were plotting to have it removed. Within one hour of those tweets appearing, a Wikipedia deletion discussion page had been opened. That same day, vandalism of Stead's Wikipedia page took place, which was quickly reversed. I do not believe the attempts to remove the Wikipedia page were started in good faith. The main complaints of the small number of individuals who sought deletion of the page in the discussion were that there were not verifiable, independent, reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Yet the article contained links to high-profile, verifiable sources such as The Guardian newspaper, which has a daily circulation of around 130,000 and has existed since 1821. Other sources included Radio Sputnik, an internationally-respected radio station with bases in Moscow, Edinburgh and Washington DC. Stead's Wikipedia page could have been improved, and indeed was improved in the last few days, but the reasons given for deletion were flimsy and were the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists. I urge Wikipedia to reconsider this decision. NeilA1978 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (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 very nomination has never been properly refuted, which says "Fails Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (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 puzzled as to why the AFD was closed as delete when there are more Keep votes than Delete. There is a bigger consensus to Keep than Delete, seeing as there are 6 Keep votes, and only 3 Delete votes. Also, an entertainer's popularity *does* factor into their notability, per criterion #2 of WP:ENT: ]
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.I'd say the fact that the subject used to have 1 million subscribers meets that criterion, so I'm not sure why the closing admin asserted that "popularity is immaterial". Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 September 2019
2 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion was justified at the time. However, this girl has received a flurry of coverage in the media since her return to Youtube. That combined with the controversy surrounding her return, makes her notable in my opinion. More specifically, WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Here are a few articles on her on the first page of Google search results alone [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2019 (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 can't edit this page, so I'm bringing the discussion here. I'm bringing Schneider's notability into question. Zelda120! (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 September 2019
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Significant rise in popularity since 2 years ago - ranked #1 yearly & monthly on pornhub's list. 5M instagram followers. 2600:8801:C100:2E4:D4AC:B12E:E49:B355 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
sources: https://www.xbiz.com/news/246121/op-ed-heres-what-happened-with-the-mia-khalifa-interview https://fortune.com/2018/01/24/most-popular-adult-film-stars/ https://www.bosshunting.com.au/culture/lana-rhoades-exclusive https://avn.com/business/articles/video/lana-rhoades-discusses-porn-debut-669399.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-sexual-coercion-epidemic-in-porn Redirect to penthouse pet is pretty confusing 2600:8801:C100:2E4:9A5:E887:195E:2ADF (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |