Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 15: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:31, 15 May 2008 editGustavusPrimus (talk \| contribs)83 edits →Aset Ka ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:37, 15 May 2008 edit undo69.140.152.55 (talk) →Aset Ka: refactorNext edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	*'''Endorse Restore''' "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Misplaced Pages article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully documented in an international published book, and addressed in several other books not published and nor endorsed by the organization.<br>		*'''Endorse Restore''' "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Misplaced Pages article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully documented in an international published book, and addressed in several other books not published and nor endorsed by the organization.<br>
	~~The~~ reason for deletion simply that the organization does not exist, being a hoax. And that is easily proven false. The verifiability of the organization's existence is easy to research and prove, only their beliefs are not and are not even the subject of this debate. The Aset Ka is an officially licensed publisher from Portugal, with the tile granted by APEL, the Portuguese government institution responsible to legislate those organizations. They even have their own ISBN prefixes and ISBN gamma intervals that can only be used exclusively by their organization, marked as an "Occult Order" on APEL's databases, which I verified myself with a phone call, which any of you can also make to verify it.<br>		T:he reason for deletion simply that the organization does not exist, being a hoax. And that is easily proven false. The verifiability of the organization's existence is easy to research and prove, only their beliefs are not and are not even the subject of this debate. The Aset Ka is an officially licensed publisher from Portugal, with the tile granted by APEL, the Portuguese government institution responsible to legislate those organizations. They even have their own ISBN prefixes and ISBN gamma intervals that can only be used exclusively by their organization, marked as an "Occult Order" on APEL's databases, which I verified myself with a phone call, which any of you can also make to verify it.<br>
	The article that was deleted one year ago had several misconceptions in the terms of their theology and even nomenclature, all of that was corrected in the new article. Just the former writer of the old article probably did not cared about it and did not even defended his writings upon deletion request in the last time. The new book added as a reference and source was even already available as of last year, and it was simply did not mentioned, which proves how the former writer was not knowledgeable and misinformed, compared to the new one.<br>		:The article that was deleted one year ago had several misconceptions in the terms of their theology and even nomenclature, all of that was corrected in the new article. Just the former writer of the old article probably did not cared about it and did not even defended his writings upon deletion request in the last time. The new book added as a reference and source was even already available as of last year, and it was simply did not mentioned, which proves how the former writer was not knowledgeable and misinformed, compared to the new one.<br>
	On the top of that, 2 images were deleted and marked as copy of previously deleted material (CSD G4), which is clearly inaccurate, since none of those images were ever present on Misplaced Pages, or anything close to it, which can easily be verified by any admin. Also, both images were presented with full information, as well as copyright and under fair use, meeting all of Misplaced Pages requirements and the United States law.<br>		:On the top of that, 2 images were deleted and marked as copy of previously deleted material (CSD G4), which is clearly inaccurate, since none of those images were ever present on Misplaced Pages, or anything close to it, which can easily be verified by any admin. Also, both images were presented with full information, as well as copyright and under fair use, meeting all of Misplaced Pages requirements and the United States law.<br>
	So I really hope this review for deletion can be seen with new eyes and more of an open mind, instead of a biased opinion based on the author's claims. ] (]) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)		:So I really hope this review for deletion can be seen with new eyes and more of an open mind, instead of a biased opinion based on the author's claims. ] (]) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 16:37, 15 May 2008

< May 14	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 16 >

15 May 2008

Aset Ka

I'm filing this request for GustavusPrimus. She claims the article was incorrectly deleted; the original AfD closed as delete, as it was an unreferenced hoax, however, the article was rewritten with more references and images, but similar information. The article was then speedied under WP:CSD#G4, something the author disagrees with. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion (as closing admin) The only new source offered in the recent draft is a self-published book on Aset Ka that contains much of the same unreliable and unreferenced material that was used to substantiate the outrageous claims made in the previously deleted article. As such, I consider the original consensus to still apply and have therefore speedied the new version per G4. It is worth noting that no draft of the article ever offered any record of physical evidence for the historicity of the order or any published criticism of the "research" that led to uncovering its existence.
Trusilver put it best in the deletion debate, "It's a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references. There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago which as far as I'm concerned put this clearly in opposition of WP:NOT#OR." ˉˉ╦╩ 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Restore "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Misplaced Pages article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully documented in an international published book, and addressed in several other books not published and nor endorsed by the organization.

T:he reason for deletion simply that the organization does not exist, being a hoax. And that is easily proven false. The verifiability of the organization's existence is easy to research and prove, only their beliefs are not and are not even the subject of this debate. The Aset Ka is an officially licensed publisher from Portugal, with the tile granted by APEL, the Portuguese government institution responsible to legislate those organizations. They even have their own ISBN prefixes and ISBN gamma intervals that can only be used exclusively by their organization, marked as an "Occult Order" on APEL's databases, which I verified myself with a phone call, which any of you can also make to verify it.

The article that was deleted one year ago had several misconceptions in the terms of their theology and even nomenclature, all of that was corrected in the new article. Just the former writer of the old article probably did not cared about it and did not even defended his writings upon deletion request in the last time. The new book added as a reference and source was even already available as of last year, and it was simply did not mentioned, which proves how the former writer was not knowledgeable and misinformed, compared to the new one.

On the top of that, 2 images were deleted and marked as copy of previously deleted material (CSD G4), which is clearly inaccurate, since none of those images were ever present on Misplaced Pages, or anything close to it, which can easily be verified by any admin. Also, both images were presented with full information, as well as copyright and under fair use, meeting all of Misplaced Pages requirements and the United States law.

So I really hope this review for deletion can be seen with new eyes and more of an open mind, instead of a biased opinion based on the author's claims. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantifica

No conflict of interest. Thanks for your answer Stifle. But can you tell me why in what way my article was advertisement? What should I change? I used articles made for competitors and nobody seem to think their articles were advertisement: Gartner, Forrester Research, Informa... Check these out. Bebeagrafe (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, the page was deleted because it was an advertizement, not because of any conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: there were, as I recall, 3 sources in French. Are the sources neutral and verifiable, and do they support the content of the article as written? If yes, then I would vote to list; otherwise, endorse deletion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Advert and COI apply. Bebeagrafe, stop trying to deny COI - unless I mis-read you, you admit it here. Your original user name was Quantichristo. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Jacobs

This article was deleted last year because he was just a "Local radio talk show host in Phoenix". But actually hes also a national sports anchor on Fox Sports Radio. Im guessing the article didn't mention this. A few people in the AFD mentioned this but as the admin put it "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. As for notability I think hosting a show on a major sports network with 300+ affiliates across the US is notable. Just like the other Fox hosts:Andrew Siciliano, Ben Maller, and J. T. the Brick-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Relist. Someone should have at least checked the sources, even if the one editor did not care to provide them. We do not automatically default to delete. MrPrada (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Relist. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion unless the sources (plural) are actually found and cited, rather than talked about. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Relist the article did mention it: "and a syndicated weekend sports talk show on Fox Sports Radio." The article as deleted was extremely promotional in tone, and I'd suggest improving it with a more encyclopedic way -- and with sources DGG (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Beren

UNDELETE_REASON Steveberen (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'd like to draw attention to the deletion of this article. The article, which has been on Misplaced Pages since 2006, was previously (back in 2006, I believe) suggested for removal because of non-neutrality. This was early in its existence, and was resolved quickly, and the article remained up through 2006, 2007, and until earlier today. I'm the subject of the article, and the original author, but the accuracy and neutrality of the article was not questioned further. I believe the decision to delete was wrong. There are a multiplicity of factors applying to this biographical article. In the proposed-deletion discussion, some of these were dismissed to one extent or another, in my opinion inappropriately when considered against existing guidelines. Moreover, even if one factor (failed former candidacy) is not notable in and of itself, and even if another factor (former communist/aheist turned motivational speaker and born-again Christian) is not notable in and of itself, the totality of these and several other factors equals sufficient notability. A more careful reading of my part of the proposed-delete discussion would lead to a different conclusion, I believe. Please review carefully and consider the above rationale for undeletion - Steve Beren, 5/14/08, 8:44 pm PDT

Overturn. I find the lack of a closing rationale rationale troubling. The main argument seems to have been that he failed WP:POLITICIAN, but as Les Grand pointed out, he met WP:BIO, with numerous verified second and third party sources, such as: Canada Free Press, Conservative Voice, Seattle Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer, New York Times, Seattle Times, Seattle Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, NEws Tribune, Seattle Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle Times, Seattle Times, Seattle Times, Crosscut Seattle. This is more then enough to meet WP:BIO, even if he has never been a successful candidate. MrPrada (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times link above is broken, which is problematic, because a full-length New York Times article that has somebody as its primary subject would be prima facie evidence of notability. Also, many of the above sources only display the first part of the story, not enough for a reader to determine the nature of the coverage (unless one were to register on their website); if an article merely describes the campaign or the results of the election, this would only establish notability if the candidate won or came close to winning. Unless I can get more info., I would relist to get a broader consensus. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and relist per 69.140, but Steve, please bear in mind the autobiography rules. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Relist but write carefully. The NYT article is a short 491 word article from 1970, about his success in suing for free radio time back when he was running on the Socialist Workers Party ticket for State Assembly in NY, long before he became a conservative Republican in Seattle. Paywall,but still a usable reference. DGG (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kremlin (bar)

I'd like to bring to your attention the deletion of an article I created. I created the article Kremlin (bar) was was nominated for deletion after having undergone some revisions (the addition of two other identically-named bars to the article, as far as I remember). This is despite the Kremlin in Northern Ireland being notable as Northern Ireland's first gay bar. Unfortunately I knew very little of its history or anything else about the bar, and I had hoped other editors might be able to expand it from being merely a stub.

Excuse me for not following normal procedure here - I am in between Misplaced Pages user accounts, and I'm not sure what editing powers an IP-assigned editor has in this regard. Please feel free to tidy this up and submit a proper review on my behalf.

The article was deleted on the 31st of January this year, by four votes to one against (not including the nominator). --90.206.36.142 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

originally posted to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender ˉˉ╦╩ 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Appears to have been closed corectly. DRV is not AfD round 2, and we can't overturn without solid, policy-based reasons. Sorry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
question Do we have any independent sources claiming that it is the first gay bar in Northern Ireland? I couldn't find anyone else making the claim? That would be a claim of notability if it were independently sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. No reasons given to overturn the closure. Some independient sources showing notability would be helpful --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)