| Revision as of 19:49, 18 November 2006 editAmarkov (talk | contribs)11,154 editsm stop it← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:49, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,029 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (86 intermediate revisions by 37 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. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|John Bambenek}} — (]) |
|
|
Deletion was unwarranted, this person is clearly a notable individual in his field, and the closing admin was biased when closing the AFD. This article should not have been deleted, and circumstances have changed significantly enough for him to have an article. ] 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''', delete result was unanimous. I fixed the AfD link to point to the result. ] <small></small> 17:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse'''. Absurd amounts of meatpuppetry, but there still were no verifiable sources. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Jeremy G Wittet}} — (]) |
|
|
Deleting this article was also unwarranted. Jeremy G Wittet is notable enough to have his own article, and the article was deleted with no logical reasoning for it. Please undelete it if you can! ] 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* According to ], who claims to be the individual in question, the article itself was entirely inaccurate, and created by an impersonator. Additionally the deletion summary was ''Namespamming, vanity, non-notable, repost''. Without seeing the actual article to see any claims of notability, tentative '''endorse'''. ] <small></small> 18:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was deleted for failing to meet Misplaced Pages's gender neutrality policies. These policies state "Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise." The problem is that there is a very distinct reason to not have a gender-neutral category name here. Comics are, historically, a very male dominated industry. Much has been written about male misogynism in comis stories, and the critiques reach from mainstream superhero comics to underground artists like R. Crumb. Books and articles are published on the topic, it's a frequent issue at academic comics conferences, and industry figures like Gail Simone and Trina Robbins have spoken out quite loudly about the issue of women in comics. |
|
|
|
|
|
As an example, out of DC's superhero titles being published in February, only two have a woman as the main writer. A third has a woman as one of three co-writers, and there are two female inkers. That's it. |
|
|
|
|
|
The category renaming issue could also probably be fixed with "Women working in comics" or something similar. Alternatively, the category could be broadeend to include important female characters - Wonder Woman, Blondie Boopadoop, etc. These are issues to sort out at WikiProject Comics. But there is definitely one or more categories to be done on this topic, as the topic of women in comics exists in academic study of comics, and is thus a sensible way to navigate the articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
I therefore ask permission to recreate a similar category. ] 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''', as your arguments were never brought up. Keep in mind that, had they been, I would endorse deletion. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Sven Co-op}} — (]) |
|
|
Sven Co-op is one of the most notable and well-established (dating back to ) ''Half-Life'' mods currently in existence. The mod is continuously in the top 10-15 ranking of all Steam multiplayer games and mods being played at any time (see ) and it was hand picked by Valve Software themselves to be listed in Steam's store, both on the official Steampowered site and through the program itself, as a free mod to download (See its listing at the , also note that ''only'' 26 mods, out of the hundreds and hundreds available, are listed). A Google search for "Sven Co-op" elicits (or if you count the all common variations of the mod name). A check of the three most common download mirrors (, , ) indicates over 450,000 total downloads (Of course there are tens of thousands more elsewhere). According to , the creators of Sven Co-op were chosen by Valve to be flown to Dallas to be at the Valve 2002 Mod Expo. Sven Co-op was also chosen on Mod DB as the one of the Best Mods Overall for , , , and , just about always in the top 5. As mentioned in the AfD discussion, there is print material covering the mod, specifically its sequel Sven Co-op 2 (See PC Zone articles: ). As for the AfD itself, four delete versus three keep is not a very wide consensus. I believe that Sven Co-op meets all the necessary notability requirements quite nicely, and then some. ] 02:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist'''. You've only really cited one source, but considering that the decision was made based on no sources, it should be relisted. The numbers are irrelevant, though, "Notable to Half-life fans" shouldn't be counted. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''': I was trying to cite three separate sources, so I apologize if I wasn't clear. is ]'s official website. ] is, well, just Mod DB, and quite significant when it comes to mods for any games. There are also the ] articles that ] pointed out in the original AfD, which I believe is an example of the mod being the subject of an independent and published third party source. Also, Sven Co-op isn't just notable to Half-Life fans. As I pointed out, the mod has become popular and well-known enough to have been picked by Valve to be listed on their official site as well as through their program ]. To be chosen by the actual game developers themselves for this honor is a very considerable feat, and it shows that the mod is notable to more than just the players (Although the size of the Half-Life fanbase is nothing to belittle, really). ] |
|
|
***'''Comment''' (Neutral, leaning towards relist though I'm not sure the outcome won't be the same) the PC Zone source is fine (I'm not sure if it counts as one mention or three), but having a product listed at steampowered, while impressive, isn't really a source. You have mistaken notability for popularity though (youtube fads, for example, get deleted all the time without sources, even though they can be popular). It isn't, it's about people (specifically reliable sources, since we shouldn't rely on any other sources on WP) noting (hence notability) the subject by writing articles specifically about the subject. Because of this the Mod DB prizes can't be used as sources for notability (they're just a short blurb). The other one is an interview, and my understanding is that we treat interview material (that is, if the interviewers don't write an article on top of that) as primary source material. ] 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''' if abovementioned sources were to be added I think the AfD discussion would have a different outcome. ]]/] 09:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - as original closing admin - I don't have a problem with relisting it based on the above sources, though I think it may meet the same fate. Perhaps a better idea would have been to recreate the article using the sources now uncovered, rather than requesting undeletion of an uncited article. ]] 09:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Comment''': I wasn't aware that recreating the article was a possibility (Although from scratch? Is there something wrong with integrating these sources into the old article?). In this case, I suppose I'll just mull over a new article for Sven Co-op for the time being. May I withdraw this deletion review? ] 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' prior deletion, '''recreate''' new article from sources. ] <small></small> 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|