|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The page for this single is completely false. Nothing has ever been said by the band about this song being a single, the cover submitted for it was a fan made creation combining Nightwish's logo, Within Temptation's Album Artwork and Evanescence's font. The song had been said to never be performed like by the band. -- "heliosis" Talk
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lunavelis is a real alternative-rock band from Cleveland, OH. I am unsure as to why their page was deleted in the first place as they are a legitimate band. Currently signed to the Arp Media Record Label while releasing a full-length album which is available on iTunes and throughout the internet. Lunavelis has also opened for Grammy Award Winners, Ok Go. They're gradually gaining popularity amongst the college age demographic receiving notable airtime on numerous midwest radio stations as well as Cleveland's primary alternative rock radio station 92.3FM KROCK. I think it would be beneficial for Lunavelis' fans to have access to a Lunavelis wiki page to learn more about the band. Lunawiki ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
This is a strange DRV and a long story, but here goes. AtTask was originally an article about a project management software company and was one of the listed titles on list of project management software. This page has a fairly long history, and was reviewed for deletion back in February after a contested speedy deletion, with a result of keep. Sometime in November/December, it was nominated for deletion again after User:Vpdjuric had worked to improve the article (with possible COI but it seems like this user was working hard to be neutral). The result of the discussion this time was delete, with most users stating that the product may be notable but not the company (the article seemed to be adequately sourced and the company/prdocut covered by third parties). At this time, User:Vpdjuric recreated a new article, @task, about the product, instead of the company, according to the suggestion of the AFD. It was marked for speedy deletion as an advertisement, but that was reviewed by User:Chrislk02 who said "asserts notability and is cited. if notability is contested, please take to afd" at which point Hu12 marked it as recreation of deleted material with a link to the spam report. All this may be questionable to some degree but still procedure. However, at this point, Hu12 added the articles to protected titles with the message: AtTask repeatidly recreated. Eight deletions total including two Afds Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AtTask and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtTask (2nd nomination) see also @task Hu12 ( talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC). This is factually false. "Two AFDs" would imply they were both "delete" but only one was; the other was a clear keep. The eight deletions are between 2 different pages, 4 of which were in February and were overturned by the AFD. The last deletion of @task was, in my opinion, an unfair attack on good-faith efforts by the author of the page to comply with the most recent AFD. I felt the titles should be unprotected to allow an appropriate article to be created about the product as mentioned in the AFD. I attempted to contact Hu12 over this issue but my arguments would not be listened to, and I did not want a wheel war, so I decide to let the issue cool off. A few days ago, I noticed a new page created at AtTask, Inc. This article was brief and not as sourced as the previous article, so I decided to work on it to make the text more neutral and add third party sources. Today, Hu12 has deleted this article as "recreation of deleted material" (which it clearly was not, as any admin can see from the page histories), and protected the title. I feel that the only way we can resolve the protection issue is here at DRV, so I am posting it for the communities consideration. I don't really care whether the deletion of AtTask (the company) is overturned, but I think the titles should be unprotected so that the article about the product (which is clearly notable) can be written by the editors wishing to contribute to the topic. Renesis ( talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Hu12 ( talk) 09:30, 11 January 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was closed as a non-admin keep even though only a very limited number of editors participated. I rebutted the discussion about the sources, and the other delete and the two keeps had not one policy based reason, saying only that the league exists and that it's "obvious". This debate, becuase of the lack of discussion should be Relisted in AFD or overturned and delete. Secret account 15:45, 9 January 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed as redirect while consensus clearly indicates keep. Closer also pre-emtively protected the redirect under CSD G4 "to enforce consensus". G4 only applies if the article were actually deleted and recreated, which is not the case here. Closer then sets stringent conditions if editors want to fix the issues raised in the AfD, by requiring the article be listed here for these improvements to be reviewed, before they can be implemented. That is not an acceptable process. Non-withstanding administrative discretion, I feel the closer has shown some bias in closing the AfD. — Edokter • Talk • 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
restoration
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Good faith non-admin closure as keep/nomination withdrawn by nominator who changed their mind. The debate was not non-controversial, though, as another editor !voted for deletion. From a review of the discussion comments, I feel it is likely that a different outcome would be possible if the AFD ran its course. JERRY talk contribs 03:54, 9 January 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
This userbox was an alternative to the "support the troops" and "stable Iraq" boxes. It was deleted without notice with the comment "This is disruptive, liable to cause drama, and unhelpful to the project. Please do not recreate it. Thanks.". And yes, I am a bit steamed at the removal of the box expressing the side unfavored by admin, and only manage to assume good faith with difficulty. MQDuck ( talk) 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Yup it is very difficult to assume good faith here, but let me try. I'm all for free-speech (and not that's it relevant I don't support the Iraq dfisasco) but I am dead against trolling. So, I'll post the deleted userbox here, and say no more.-- Docg 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well apparently my defense wasn't as obvious as I'd thought. It doesn't make sense to me for it to be alright to express support the forces on one side of a conflict, but disruptive to express support for the opposing forces. I understand the argument that Wikipedia is not the place to take sides, but you have to be consistent in that case. Just mind reading here, but perhaps you think "support the troops" isn't an aggressive or non-peaceful statement (the userbox even has a guy with a gun on it, compared to a flag on mine). But if non-aggressive and pro-peace is what you consider acceptable, then I think you'd have to agree that they should both be replaced with something like "I support minimum casualties in Iraq". -- MQDuck ( talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC) That other crap exists isn't a good reason to let you troll with this.-- Docg 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not an excuse, but it brings up a bigger question about statements of support for any side of the war. Since the consensus on my userbox is becoming clear, a wider discussion needs to open up about all statements of support for any side in the Iraq war, so I'd like to insist that one be opened. -- MQDuck ( talk) 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there's more of a defense here than that equivalent userboxes supporting the other side, or supporting equivalently divisive positions in other arguments, are allowed to remain. Those who favor deletion of controversial, soapboxy userboxes seem always to posit that they don't help in the creation of an encyclopedia. I suggest that that claim needs to be examined. Specifically, I believe allowing users to display userboxes not directly related to encyclopedia work, even controversial ones, does in fact help in the creation of the encyclopedia, because it helps keep the people who post those userboxes happy. Happy editors are better editors; hell, unhappy editors sometimes become departing editors, thereafter contributing nothing. I'm not suggesting that this is obviously correct. I'm suggesting that, before accepting a claim that the box in question disrupts the project, you examine it. Is there evidence of controversy arising from this or any similar userbox disrupting directly the creation of any mainspace page? If not, then we're just talking about relative unhappiness here, and to that effect I submit that those who post userboxes on their own pages are probably more affected by them than those who might be offended, but do not have to visit the userpages in question. For the record: (1) I suppose I'm not unbiased – I posted this very userbox on my own page the day before it went up for deletion; (2) I do mind that the community as a whole seems to tolerate certain highly opinionated boxes but not others, but I admit that's not directly germane to this proceeding. atakdoug ( talk) 07:20, 9 January 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I translated this article from Japanese wikipedia. Reason is this expression sounds like English, but it is NOT. Often it is confusing. So it is NOT correct English (this is the whole reason I translated.) I tried to contact admin, but my comment is deleted for some reason. I appreciate if anybody else review this process. AIEA ( talk) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |