| Revision as of 00:09, 28 July 2006 editMichaelch7 (talk | contribs)136 edits →[]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:07, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
====]==== |
|
|
This image was removed by ] with the reason being ]. This image is still in the ] article and thus, should be undeleted. ] 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Done'''. For some reason, ] refuses to acknowledge the fact that said article does, in fact, link to it, and has done since before the deletion. I guess that's why Proto thought it ok to delete what amounted to an unused fair-use image. -] - ] 02:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*It didn't tell me it was still in use (bah) - as it still is, then no issue with undeletion here. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Removed from ] by ] saying it was unsourced, which it wasn't: a was given. The article is currently un-illustrated. I will compose a fair use rationale, etc., once restored. ]] 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Done'''. The sourcing was removed by a vandal, and orphan bot isn't able to spot that. I restored it and reverted back to pre-vandal (and thus also pre-speedy tags). As it stands, the image has a tag and a source, so probably its ok. If you can write the detailed fair-use rationale, that'd be good, too. -] - ] 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:'']'' |
|
|
Relist, as show is on Sirus Stars every Wednesday on Sirius Satellite channel 102 at 4:30 PM PT (7:30 PM ET) starting August 2nd. Which is national satelite radio. Also on large podcast network ]. Deserves an article again. If relisted I could cleanup and add the new content easily. ] 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment:''' I've notified ] of this review. --] ] 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''' Concerns noted above were raised in the AFD discussion. User:WilyD said they couldn't find any news articles about the show. No evidence of independent reliable sources presented in AFD or above. ] 13:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''': I do wonder, though, about the searches. The word "cliche" with or without the grave could screw things up. I agree, though, about podcasts: knowing their audience is all but impossible, and there is a multiple infinity of them waiting just outside the door to get in. We haven't developed a ] yet to try to assess the chaos coming our way, and I would encourage any policy freaks reading this to start it (yeah, I'm a policy freak, but I have prejudices against pod people). ] 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:What's wrong with ]? --]<sup>]</sup> 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::It's been a while since I looked, but it would be possible, even likely, that a site ''hosting'' a podcast would get trillions of visitors a day, while the podcast might be downloaded and listened to by virtually no one. On the other hand, it might be possible for a specialty podcast on, say, nude fly fishing, to get mentioned multiple times by newspapers as an example of the silliest thing in the world and yet have no downloads except by the podcaster's wife. In other words, hits and references are going to be especially misleading with podcasts, and podcasters themselves haven't the vaguest idea how many listeners they actually have. The hosts of the podcasts are going to be poor indicators, as well, as PodCentral or whatever serves that function might get a lot of aggregate hits with virtually none for any one podcast. ] 18:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::'Hits', whether Google, Alexa, or whatever, are almost always misleading, or should be assumed to be so. As for external sources, the vast majority of nn podcasts won't have any, and for your example of a podcast that received lots of external coverage but had a tiny audience, well, assuming the only mention was 'as an example of the silliest thing in the world', that would (hopefully) be deleted by AfD as relying on trivial slow-news-day passing mentions - such news stories would almost certainly be unable to decently verify anything about the podcast other than its existence. I just don't see what new guidance a separate guideline would have to offer. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Well, I'm not writing one, but I think at least a codicil to the existing wikilawyering of WP:WEB would be nice as a truncheon to wield when needed. <shrug> Mileage varies. ] 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD. --] ] 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:'']'' |
|
|
Please undelete the article about Trae, the southern rapper. His article was deleted because he was deemed "non-notable." However, this is not the case. He was a founding member of the Screwed Up Click, a very notable group, and was one of the three members of Guerrilla Maab. He has recorded with many popular artists and continues to feature very popular artists in his music (Like Yung Joc, Pimp C, H.A.W.K, and others). He is extremely popular in his hometown of Houston, and his songs are frequently played on the local rap stations. He is not a "non-Notable."{{unsigned|65.70.37.177|26 July 2006, 13:13 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*Process was followed, but I'm not sure I agree with the result. AMG (All Music Guide) isn't actually like Misplaced Pages: you can submit whatever you like, but they have an editorial staff, and for years we've applied AMG entries as a criterion for passing the musical bar. Additionally, the records released and on sale indicates passing the minimal threshold. I ''loathe'' vanity music articles, but I have to say that I will lean, very tentatively, with a very, very, very weak '''overturn and restore.''' I could be tipped over into endorsing deletion by a feather landing on my nose. ] 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', the AfD was valid. If you can verify this notability with ], I'll change my mind, but during one of the AfDs I took part in, none of the claims were verifiable. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD. --] ] 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn Deletion''' does appear to have some notability, and process appears to have been abused. Particularly egregious is the salting of this page. Totally uncalled for. --] 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:'']'' |
|
|
This article was redirected by User ?]. Does he have the authority to do this. If not, I will reinstate the article again. He has done this before. |
|
|
|
|
|
If he did have authority, under what grounds? Please undelete the article about the California State Normal School, which was redirected to the San Jose State University article by user NeoChaosX, who advocated its deletion because it is a former name of that school. The article is about the early days of the entire Calfiornia State Normal School system, not just one school. Also, an article based on another former name of the school, the ] still exists. Why the double standard?] |26 July 2006 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*'''Endorse redirect''' as the AfD nominator. I did not do the redirect, I simply edited it because it was originally a double redirect. Second, the Minns School article is actually a redirect to an article about the founder of the school, and is not an article about the school itself. Thus, there is no double standard here. --] 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD. Redirects are cheap. --] ] 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''': The redirect was following an AfD. For a history on this "problem," there was a discussion on AN/I on the behavior of the person lodging the appeal here. It's nearly necessary to protect the redirect. ] 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn deletion''': This is incredible. You guys are supporting the deletion of an article about an important period of California history that has almost been lost, all because one guy doesn't like the fact that something called the California State Normal School once existed. It did exist, and it was more than "SJSU" and less than "CSU", so it is notable. And the only "behavior" I exhibited was calling him out for his repeated episodes of deletion vandalism against my contributions. Don't support the supression of California history by SJSU students and their San Diego State supporters because they want to cover up the identity and history of an insitution that gave birth to both SJSU and the entire CSU system. If that isn't what is happening here, then what is the problem with this article? This article isn't advocating anything. It is merely telling a story from California history. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, it is true that a small amount of the text is also in the SJSU and CSU articles, so the solution should be to remove it from those articles, and let the California State Normal School article stand on its own. After all, the California State Normal School included what is now UCLA, but "SJSU" never did. If that isn't a notable difference, what is? ] 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''Comment:''' ''There is no need for the nominator to re-"vote"...'' ---] (]|]) 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''' Don't make assumptions about the reason for my actions. I put the article up for deletion because other than the paragraph about the renaming campaign, there was absolutely nothing new in that article that wasn't already covered in the CSU and SJSU articles. You also admitted in the AfD to the article being a ], which are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. I put the article up for deletion because it did not follow the guidelines for Misplaced Pages, not your ridiculous claim that I "hate the CSU name". --] 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''' Your assertion that I admitted to the article being a ], is false and absurd. You asserted that, and it is clearly a false assertion, for the reasons stated above. Moreover, I believe your quote is false also, as I do not remember stating that. Seems like you'll say almost anything to kill this article. The real question is why? Moreover, your campaign to censor this article also fits your pattern of deletions other links and contributions I have made to the SJSU and CSU articles, all of which had the same effect: to reduce and remove accurate historical and current references to the CSNS, CSUSJ and CSU oriented student and alumni organizations, while leaving SJSU advocacy-oriented links and content intact. Your pattern has been far to one-sided to be considered objective.] 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''': The article was merged already. I believe that the author or the article's defender was a little bit too insistent. The comment on AN/I has rolled off, and I'm awful at digging through archives. However, the general consensus, both with AfD and the article's redirecting, is that the information is already present, so there is no need for a separate article. ] 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***'''Comment''': You are mistaken. The articles have not been merged. Unique content and images have disappeared without a trace. ] 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''': The period in history may be important, but I can't see how it needs it's own article. The AFD was carried out within the rules. In addition, Michaelch7, you might find your arguments better received if you actually commented on the article in question and refrained from being up irrelevant details about other editors. ---] (]|]) 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorsed''' Sorry, that was a valid AfD. Nothing much else to say. It lies within the arguement that it was closed improperly, but it seems validly closed by Mailer Diablo. ] 23:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|