| Revision as of 08:45, 26 February 2007 editDiyarbakir (talk | contribs)106 edits review deletion of Kurdish related categories← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:52, 26 February 2007 edit undoDiyarbakir (talk | contribs)106 edits fixing-upNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| 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|Category_Cities_in_Turkish_Kurdistan}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | :{{la|Category_Cities_in_Turkish_Kurdistan}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | ||
| Improper deletion ] 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : category was depopulated during a ] | : category was depopulated during a ] | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{la|Category_Villages_in_Turkish_Kurdistan}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | :{{la|Category_Villages_in_Turkish_Kurdistan}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | ||
| Improper deletion ] 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : category was depopulated during a ] | : category was depopulated during a ] | ||
Revision as of 08:52, 26 February 2007
| < February 25 | Deletion review archives: 2007 February | February 27 > |
|---|
26 February 2007
Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan
- Category_Cities_in_Turkish_Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Improper deletion Diyarbakır 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- category was depopulated during a no consensus CFD
Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan
- Category_Villages_in_Turkish_Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Improper deletion Diyarbakır 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- category was depopulated during a no consensus CFD
New Ivies
At the time this article was deleted, it was a freshly coined term that had not yet taken off. Yet, it is clear that this term has been since adopted by the universities described as well as the education community. A simple Google search for "new ivies" or "new ivy" reveals coverage in sources like college newspapers, blogs, etc. I think it has entered the cultural lexicon and probably merits an explanation. Andre (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
ASCII comic
Seems like outlandish deletion to me. Overwhelming consensus to keep during AfD (remember, Merge is basically keep). The closing admin claims that "no reliable sources provided", which is completely false if he had bothered to read either AfD or the article itself. Totally pissed off, Grue 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hengband
User:Luigi30 deleted this article on an open source video game (a popular Angband variant) citing only 'spam' and further explaining himself that 'it read like an ad'. Is this guy for real? Anyway, it was a genuine article on a notable subject, it was not spam, it was by no means an ad, and the delete was completely uncalled for and the work of this man alone. Call it abuse of rights or whatever, this article needs an undelete, and then, perhaps if one finds it necessary a minor rewrite. IDX 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Judging solely by the cached version on Google: This looks borderline for a speedy, but there were no sources and no assertion of notability. I don't think it would've survived an AFD, and a casual search didn't turn up any news coverage that could be used to improve it. -Hit bull, win steak 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It shan't be too difficult to cite sources. I admit this was a failing of mine. However, I still assert that Luigi's decision was misguided. If it were undeleted I'd find sources myself (there are plenty). There is an article on ZAngband - which going by this website is now less popular than Heng/Entroband. There are articles on the most minor of open source games on Misplaced Pages. I don't see why this is not notable - and if properly sourced, can't be an article. And there are still broken likes around IDX 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that some of those open-source game articles might exist simply because nobody's noticed them and had them deleted yet. It's always better to make a case for an article on its own merits than to base that case on other articles. -Hit bull, win steak 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It shan't be too difficult to cite sources. I admit this was a failing of mine. However, I still assert that Luigi's decision was misguided. If it were undeleted I'd find sources myself (there are plenty). There is an article on ZAngband - which going by this website is now less popular than Heng/Entroband. There are articles on the most minor of open source games on Misplaced Pages. I don't see why this is not notable - and if properly sourced, can't be an article. And there are still broken likes around IDX 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: The claim to notability is that it is based on something else. There is nothing that establishes that this game is downloaded/played, and the list of "roguelike" computer games is enormous. What sets this one apart from the mass? Well, the article gives the update list. It lists the features. It doesn't read like an ad so much as it does the version history from the download. Geogre 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a roguelike aficianado. I'm aware of Hengband's existence, but not of any evidence that it is "popular" (and, popular compared to what?). If you can find reliable sources demonstrating that, an article might make sense. But there, are as notes somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, "1001 Angband Variants!", and being one doesn't automatically make one worthy of an article. Nandesuka 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Swastikas in popular culture
- Swastikas in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Closing admin based the closure on an inaccurate and unsupported generalization that there is "recent community consensus against 'in popular culture' articles" (there is no such consensus, more than 50% of pop culture articles are surviving AfD and there are no specific policies about in pop culture articles) - and also the closing admin called it a "mess" which is a personal bias. Request a neutral closure. Please close based on the specifics of the strengths of the arguments. In this case, WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish the entire article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale, many of the entries are perfectly valid for Misplaced Pages. Stbalbach 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn clear consensus to keep on AfD. The opinion of closing admin shouldn't matter really. Grue 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)