Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 11: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:02, 11 April 2008 editThe undertow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,802 edits →User:Keilana/Deleted cabals: re← Previous edit Revision as of 18:22, 11 April 2008 edit undoGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 editsm →:Image:Camp x-ray detainees.jpgNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:


Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE with the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE with the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->

====]====
:{{la|:Image:Camp x-ray detainees.jpg}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>&#124;</tt>]<tt>)</tt>

This image was ported to the commons, but the source information points to now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. A cropped version also points at the now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. ] This image was probably part of the same roll of film as this low resolution image from January 11th 2002... ] ] (]) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 18:22, 11 April 2008

< April 10 Deletion review archives: 2008 April April 12 >

11 April 2008

]

] (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was ported to the commons, but the source information points to now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. A cropped version also points at the now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. Image:Camp x-ray detainees cropped.jpg This image was probably part of the same roll of film as this low resolution image from January 11th 2002... Image:First 20 Guantanamo captives.jpg Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wish to object to the deletion of the subject "American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography." I do not understand why an article describing a non-profit credentialing agency, which is the largest on Earth for Diagnostic Sonographers is considered an advertisement.

How do I call for a review of this deletion?

Terry J. DuBose, M.S, RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM DuBose 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Poleman

Tom Poleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 after a short (less than 4 hour) AfD, for not asserting notability. However a simple Google News Archive reveales plenty of references, including being featured as a "top 40" individual in both Billboard Radio Monitor and Crain's New York Business. I've recreated and expanded the article with references at User:DHowell/Tom Poleman and brought it here to DRV, as the deleting admin indicated I should do. DHowell (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Allow recreation. The version DHowell has made clearly asserts notability and is in all likelihood a clear WP:BIO passer as well due to the accolades in various publications. The original deletion seems to have been partially based on the lack of sources cited in the article, and for a BLP that is a fair concern, even if it's not an A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's refreshing. Much better version. Sorry for the trouble here, I did close the AfD after I deleted the article that was, as well as being AfD tagged, was speedy tagged A7. (BIO) I deleted it while clearing out speedies, then went and closed the AfD. Happens all the time. Allow recreation of DHowell's version, very clear assertion of notability;excellent sourcing. No need for new AfD, IMO. (And to DHowell, You had me at Haiku.  :-). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Keilana/Deleted cabals

User:Keilana/Deleted cabals (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The list of deleted cabals can be found on the listed page, that page is not under deletion review. There has been a lot of discussion about these deletions recently, and it seems that the issue should be settled properly. I know it's odd to review one's own deletion, but I feel this is the right course of action to properly gauge community consensus. Keilana| 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion I'm not seeing any cabals there that shouldn't have been, and should therefore remain, deleted. MBisanz 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse Keilana's deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore and take each to MfD. People keep forgetting that 'cabals' were not deleted, pages were. Untagged pages. Regardless of content, they were haphazardly deleted, with no speedy criteria, and no AfD consensus. These pages were deleted arbitrarily under IAR and each page should get its day in court. the_undertow 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore and list at MfD, at least multiple listings by user. Deleted against consensus and out of policy citing IAR is not appropriate. Lara❤Love 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion (if one likes, of course, list at AfD) per the The undertow, both supra and here, where he happens recently to have, relative to this issue, properly observed, at greater length than he does here, that summary/speedy/IAR-inspired deletion is almost always to be disfavored in situations like this. Joe 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I believe Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cabals shows consensus, and I thus think that going to MfD would be WP:BURO-ish. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The RfC seems to have obtained a wide consensus that the deletion was in order as they served no encyclopaedic purpose. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake helps no-one. Am also in agreement with Mbisanz's and DHMO's comments. Orderinchaos 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion to end the drama and reinforce the "not MySpace" message, which seems to me to need doing at the moment. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Guy, let's end this now. George The Dragon (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore and send each to MfD per the_undertow and LaraLove. Walton 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • restore and list at MfD per Undertow, Lara and nom. I really don't care about these much, but in general essentially harmless pages should get their chance to make a case for inclusion. Furthermore, as long as editors are being productive encyclopedia editors I don't see any compelling reason not to let them have a little fun. Reducing drama is not a compelling argument; the solution to that is for people to stay civil during discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem here is that the editors concerned were, for the most part, only editing these "cabals", and having nothing to do with the encyclopedia. That is a major part of my concern. Keilana| 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The merit of editors is not part of any deletion criteria that I know of. Furthermore, it's about the userpages that were deleted, not about your opinion of the contributors. the_undertow 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion criteria were never designed to handle this situation. In this case, and in these circumstances, it's a fair consideration. Orderinchaos 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Userpages are handled at MfD. This is not a unique situation. the_undertow 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn There has already been a MfD on most of them, and the result was speedy keep. I do not see a consensus to delete at either of the AN/I discussions, or any consensus at all at RfC--certainly not enough to justify proceeding via IAR. Personally, I would very much like to see them go, and some other cabals also, but there needs to be actual demonstrated consensus. If some eds. think the consensus has changed in the last month, start individual MfDs. There was considerable support in many places that they should be considered individually. Trying to shortcut process in the presence of dissent in the name of avoiding BURO is counterproductive--it produces more complicated debates than ordinary proceedings would have. DGG (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As has been discussed many times already, the MfD took place without the information necessary to make a decision, and in an atmosphere incredibly hostile to non-groupthink opinions - and in addition was speedy closed after just 2 hours, so in no way demonstrated either the letter or spirit of consensus. Pretty much every rule was ignored in the MfD. Also, doesn't the multiply-endorsed views at RfC (in some cases well over 20) represent a much more constructive consensus than a !voting process on what is quite a complex situation? Orderinchaos 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)