| Revision as of 14:16, 21 March 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:07, 2 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| :::*Fastily did it twice to articles of mine within several hours, see ]. If he is not following CSD A10 he should be stopped from the ability to delete under CSD A10. There is nothing specific to him as a person in my request, I would ask this to be enforced on every user. You may like to read ], this kind of new page deletion behavior seems to be a larger issue in WP. ] (]) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :::*Fastily did it twice to articles of mine within several hours, see ]. If he is not following CSD A10 he should be stopped from the ability to delete under CSD A10. There is nothing specific to him as a person in my request, I would ask this to be enforced on every user. You may like to read ], this kind of new page deletion behavior seems to be a larger issue in WP. ] (]) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :NOTE: I now see that the 3rd A10 undeletion request on this review page, namely ] was also deleted by ]. Big problem with that user. ] (]) 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :NOTE: I now see that the 3rd A10 undeletion request on this review page, namely ] was also deleted by ]. Big problem with that user. ] (]) 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Your turning this into a witch hunt against Fastily. He made a mistake so did the admin who restored It by not removing the tag. The issue involving Walsh is completly different. ] ] 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ::Your turning this into a witch hunt against Fastily. He made a mistake so did the admin who restored It by not removing the tag. The issue involving Walsh is completly different. ] ] 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Five pages are listed at ]. Of them 3 deleted under CSD A10, all by Fastily. You can call that "a mistake", but counting brings it to "3 mistakes". At ] it is described what trouble these deletions cause. How many editors left WP due to deletions that violate CSD A10? ] (]) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :::Five pages are listed at ]. Of them 3 deleted under CSD A10, all by Fastily. You can call that "a mistake", but counting brings it to "3 mistakes". At ] it is described what trouble these deletions cause. How many editors left WP due to deletions that violate CSD A10? ] (]) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You're oversimplifying the ] process. DRV isn't a "Mistake or not" discussion. It discusses the merits of deletion discussions and rationals on a broader scope than what normal processes allow. It's more like a "Meta"-discussion. Getting overturned at DRV doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong and likewise, getting endorsed at deletion doesn't mean someone was exactly accurate either.--v/r - ]] 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ::::You're oversimplifying the ] process. DRV isn't a "Mistake or not" discussion. It discusses the merits of deletion discussions and rationals on a broader scope than what normal processes allow. It's more like a "Meta"-discussion. Getting overturned at DRV doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong and likewise, getting endorsed at deletion doesn't mean someone was exactly accurate either.--v/r - ]] 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::::IMO, the time wasted on this would have perhaps been better spent researching misapplication of ] A10 as a whole and then considering a community wide ]. We've already had RFCs on other forms of CSD in the past, and '''if''' there is a ''larger'' pattern of misapplication of A10, then a well written RFC with links to such cases would be of benefit to the community. This particular DRV here with jabs at ] does not benefit anyone, however. --] (]) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :::::IMO, the time wasted on this would have perhaps been better spent researching misapplication of ] A10 as a whole and then considering a community wide ]. We've already had RFCs on other forms of CSD in the past, and '''if''' there is a ''larger'' pattern of misapplication of A10, then a well written RFC with links to such cases would be of benefit to the community. This particular DRV here with jabs at ] does not benefit anyone, however. --] (]) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :having been involved at new pages I agree that New users could be discouraged through speedy deletion. However in most cases it is the correct outcome if not a bit harsh initially. In this case a mistake was made by two admins which has been acknowledged. Please remember we are all volunteers and our admins do a job that is hard to please everyone. In at least one of the other cases on this page it could of been deleted under several codes. Although I am not an admin I feel that this should be lesson learn and moved on from I do not see how Fastily should have his admin powers removed over this. ] ] 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)J | :having been involved at new pages I agree that New users could be discouraged through speedy deletion. However in most cases it is the correct outcome if not a bit harsh initially. In this case a mistake was made by two admins which has been acknowledged. Please remember we are all volunteers and our admins do a job that is hard to please everyone. In at least one of the other cases on this page it could of been deleted under several codes. Although I am not an admin I feel that this should be lesson learn and moved on from I do not see how Fastily should have his admin powers removed over this. ] ] 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)J | ||
| ::If Fastily applies CSD A10 with a lower error quota in the future and would show that he understood the mistake - I have no objection at all of him remaining an admin. ] (]) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ::If Fastily applies CSD A10 with a lower error quota in the future and would show that he understood the mistake - I have no objection at all of him remaining an admin. ] (]) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::{{ec}} I'm going to be frank. Your objections to Fastily's adminship are noted but irrelevant to this ]. ] is the proper location for such proposals.--v/r - ]] 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :::{{ec}} I'm going to be frank. Your objections to Fastily's adminship are noted but irrelevant to this ]. ] is the proper location for such proposals.--v/r - ]] 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy close''' this nomination because TZ master is using it as a platform to attack Fastily.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Speedy close''' this nomination because TZ master is using it as a platform to attack Fastily.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :* That's your opinion, fact is I am revealing his mistakes and make suggestions how to avoid further such mistakes. What would you suggest how to avoid deletions by Fastily in the future that violate deletion rules? ] (]) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :* That's your opinion, fact is I am revealing his mistakes and make suggestions how to avoid further such mistakes. What would you suggest how to avoid deletions by Fastily in the future that violate deletion rules? ] (]) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :**Its fairly obvious you have an issue with Fastily you have been doing so here and on his talk page please stop attacking him. How many times. This is not the place you have been advised where to go if you want to take further. ] ] 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :**Its fairly obvious you have an issue with Fastily you have been doing so here and on his talk page please stop attacking him. How many times. This is not the place you have been advised where to go if you want to take further. ] ] 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::*Yes, my opinion is that you're using this DRV as a platform to attack the deleter. Yes, that's a '''big''' no-no at DRV. DRV does not discipline administrators. We have no mandate to do that and we do not want one. DRV is about content, not conduct. If you think there's an issue with Fastily's conduct or judgment then the correct venue is supposed to be RFC/U, but the honest truth about that is that RFC/U will not avail you, because (1) there's no real problem with Fastily and (2) even if there was, it's still practically impossible to get someone desysopped unless they've done something completely egregious. For the vast majority, adminship on Misplaced Pages is for life.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :::*Yes, my opinion is that you're using this DRV as a platform to attack the deleter. Yes, that's a '''big''' no-no at DRV. DRV does not discipline administrators. We have no mandate to do that and we do not want one. DRV is about content, not conduct. If you think there's an issue with Fastily's conduct or judgment then the correct venue is supposed to be RFC/U, but the honest truth about that is that RFC/U will not avail you, because (1) there's no real problem with Fastily and (2) even if there was, it's still practically impossible to get someone desysopped unless they've done something completely egregious. For the vast majority, adminship on Misplaced Pages is for life.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy close''' We don't really seem to need this DRV as the deletion was apparently a mistake and has since been turned into a ]. Any further discussion of where to locate the content itself and/or if {{noredirect|UTC+01:30}} should redirect somewhere can take place on one of the article talk pages. --] (]) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Speedy close''' We don't really seem to need this DRV as the deletion was apparently a mistake and has since been turned into a ]. Any further discussion of where to locate the content itself and/or if {{noredirect|UTC+01:30}} should redirect somewhere can take place on one of the article talk pages. --] (]) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
| *''temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review '' ''']''' (]) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | *''temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review '' ''']''' (]) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| '''Delete'''There is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at ] and ] - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | '''Delete'''There is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at ] and ] - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *<s>'''Delete''</s>' would clearly be duplicated information from ] and ]. No more can be added as one character has left the soap and i do not feel sources merit this additional page. ] ] 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | *<s>'''Delete''</s>' would clearly be duplicated information from ] and ]. No more can be added as one character has left the soap and i do not feel sources merit this additional page. ] ] 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| **Probably doesn't merit, but also probably doesn't meet ]. ] (]) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | **Probably doesn't merit, but also probably doesn't meet ]. ] (]) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *<ec>'''overturn''' I really can't imagine this will be allowed to stay, but I've been known to have a limited imagination. In any case, A10 is designed to be ''extremely'' narrow and I don't think this meets the criteria. ] (]) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | *<ec>'''overturn''' I really can't imagine this will be allowed to stay, but I've been known to have a limited imagination. In any case, A10 is designed to be ''extremely'' narrow and I don't think this meets the criteria. ] (]) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': Just in response to comments above, the article's structure was based on the article ], which survived a deletion attempt although both characters have their own stand-alone articles as well. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. In general, it's better to merge duplicate information into a different article. The Jackson character is gone, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but Aaron is a long-running and continuing character and his article inevitably ''will'' be expanded. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline. We currently have much the same information in both the characters' articles; since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work, because they're inextricably linked, it seems far better to place it in its own article, which is why I created it. There is also ample evidence to support a following outside the serial, plus a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to speedy delete an hours-old article. Additionally, for A10 to apply the article must duplicate an existing topic ''and'' not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article on the subject, ''and'' have a title that is not a plausible redirect. Also articles that expand or reorganise existing ones or that contain referenced, mergeable material should not be deleted under A10. ] (]) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': Just in response to comments above, the article's structure was based on the article ], which survived a deletion attempt although both characters have their own stand-alone articles as well. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. In general, it's better to merge duplicate information into a different article. The Jackson character is gone, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but Aaron is a long-running and continuing character and his article inevitably ''will'' be expanded. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline. We currently have much the same information in both the characters' articles; since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work, because they're inextricably linked, it seems far better to place it in its own article, which is why I created it. There is also ample evidence to support a following outside the serial, plus a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to speedy delete an hours-old article. Additionally, for A10 to apply the article must duplicate an existing topic ''and'' not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article on the subject, ''and'' have a title that is not a plausible redirect. Also articles that expand or reorganise existing ones or that contain referenced, mergeable material should not be deleted under A10. ] (]) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': If it was recreated it would have to be straight to an AFD. You may have a point about the code used on the speedy delete however i doubt it will survive an AFD without you greatly expanding sources and proving they are a supercouple. Without that it is basicly a complete duplicate of the original articles. Also you really shouldnt of recreated it without coming here first when you did it was full of copy vios which mean you cant do that. If article stays will you be able to adequately source it without those copyvios. ] ] 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': If it was recreated it would have to be straight to an AFD. You may have a point about the code used on the speedy delete however i doubt it will survive an AFD without you greatly expanding sources and proving they are a supercouple. Without that it is basicly a complete duplicate of the original articles. Also you really shouldnt of recreated it without coming here first when you did it was full of copy vios which mean you cant do that. If article stays will you be able to adequately source it without those copyvios. ] ] 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a new article, and as I've already said, the intention was to merge information from two other articles into it, but it was deleted before I had a chance. If there were copyvios, which I wasn't aware of, they came directly from the original articles, which I didn't write. ] (]) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ::Well, again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a new article, and as I've already said, the intention was to merge information from two other articles into it, but it was deleted before I had a chance. If there were copyvios, which I wasn't aware of, they came directly from the original articles, which I didn't write. ] (]) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - ExplodingBoy - you say Aaron and Jackson gave Emmerdale some of its highest ratings? Only I know of two time periods the serials ratings were much higher off the top of my head - compare Aaron and Jackson's 8 million era with the 1990's ] 18 million and the 2005-06 when it hit 10 million again - it has not since. Not sure you should be citing ] either - I've already explained that the obvious difference is that JP/Craig described in media as a super couple - these are not. So there is no real weight behind having a seperate article. Jackson's whole Storyline was built around Aaron - from begining to end - so everything you could say would be already placed in his article. Most of Aaron's notability came of the fact he was a gay characters, thew sources support my claim - as there are more on that subject that any other - Jackson was the main story arcs for that storyline - so why have an off-shoot article taking away what simply can be said in the stand alone. Also Misplaced Pages is not a fansite, so a group of fans in a forum doesn't prove anything - there are hundreds of things that gain a niche following that we wouldn't dream of including here. However the characters themselves have enough weight behind them to establish notability. The whole point of a super couple article is to prove they are one, discuss the hype in the media, the fan following etc - it is minimal here - with the usual old rags, entertainment websites and expectedly lgbt websites reporting on them.] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - ExplodingBoy - you say Aaron and Jackson gave Emmerdale some of its highest ratings? Only I know of two time periods the serials ratings were much higher off the top of my head - compare Aaron and Jackson's 8 million era with the 1990's ] 18 million and the 2005-06 when it hit 10 million again - it has not since. Not sure you should be citing ] either - I've already explained that the obvious difference is that JP/Craig described in media as a super couple - these are not. So there is no real weight behind having a seperate article. Jackson's whole Storyline was built around Aaron - from begining to end - so everything you could say would be already placed in his article. Most of Aaron's notability came of the fact he was a gay characters, thew sources support my claim - as there are more on that subject that any other - Jackson was the main story arcs for that storyline - so why have an off-shoot article taking away what simply can be said in the stand alone. Also Misplaced Pages is not a fansite, so a group of fans in a forum doesn't prove anything - there are hundreds of things that gain a niche following that we wouldn't dream of including here. However the characters themselves have enough weight behind them to establish notability. The whole point of a super couple article is to prove they are one, discuss the hype in the media, the fan following etc - it is minimal here - with the usual old rags, entertainment websites and expectedly lgbt websites reporting on them.] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::The copyvio is your fault then - you just copied information from ] - and you claim it wasn't a copy of another article? LOL If you were familiar with any policy on here you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Just like you recreating the article before coming here first.] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ::The copyvio is your fault then - you just copied information from ] - and you claim it wasn't a copy of another article? LOL If you were familiar with any policy on here you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Just like you recreating the article before coming here first.] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Hold on. First, as you say Jackson's whole storyline was built around Aaron. But the same information about their shared storyline is now still in both the Jackson Walsh article and the Aaron Livesy article. I've already explained this twice before. Second, whether or not Aaron and Jackson are a supercouple is actually irrelevant to this deletion discussion: the supercouple question is a minor content issue, separate from both the speedy deletion issue and the question of whether the article should exist. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "expectedly lgbt websites," as though it's somehow strange or less valid for LGBT media to report on a same-sex couple. Third, since when is it a copyvio to copy information from one WP article to another? It's one thing if the original information is a copyvio (which nobody has thus far actually demonstrated), but it's quite another thing if you're talking about information merely merged from 2 source articles into a third article. This article was deleted before I had a chance to finish what I was doing anyway, so it's hardly fair to criticize it (or me) on those grounds: this article was not sitting around for months, it was no more than a couple of hours old when it was deleted. ] (]) 23:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | :::Hold on. First, as you say Jackson's whole storyline was built around Aaron. But the same information about their shared storyline is now still in both the Jackson Walsh article and the Aaron Livesy article. I've already explained this twice before. Second, whether or not Aaron and Jackson are a supercouple is actually irrelevant to this deletion discussion: the supercouple question is a minor content issue, separate from both the speedy deletion issue and the question of whether the article should exist. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "expectedly lgbt websites," as though it's somehow strange or less valid for LGBT media to report on a same-sex couple. Third, since when is it a copyvio to copy information from one WP article to another? It's one thing if the original information is a copyvio (which nobody has thus far actually demonstrated), but it's quite another thing if you're talking about information merely merged from 2 source articles into a third article. This article was deleted before I had a chance to finish what I was doing anyway, so it's hardly fair to criticize it (or me) on those grounds: this article was not sitting around for months, it was no more than a couple of hours old when it was deleted. ] (]) 23:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :A lack of sources proving notability is a reason for an article to be deleted as it does not sufficiently indicate why the subject is notable. Anyway thats not the issue it is if its recreated can you establish notability. I personally would vote overturn if you agree to it going straight to an AFD.] ] 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | :A lack of sources proving notability is a reason for an article to be deleted as it does not sufficiently indicate why the subject is notable. Anyway thats not the issue it is if its recreated can you establish notability. I personally would vote overturn if you agree to it going straight to an AFD.] ] 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't think there's any question of notability: if there were, then we wouldn't have the two stand-alone articles either. And yet again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a brand-new article. Frankly, I don't see why my agreeing to send the article to AFD should be a consideration in the discussion here either, because anyone's free to nominate an article for deletion if they think it should be deleted, but for what it's worth I've already said that AFD, not speedy deletion, is how this should have been dealt with in the first place. And if it does get AFDd then I'll make the same arguments in favour of keeping it, it will get input from the wider community, and it can stand on its own merits. ] (]) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ::I don't think there's any question of notability: if there were, then we wouldn't have the two stand-alone articles either. And yet again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a brand-new article. Frankly, I don't see why my agreeing to send the article to AFD should be a consideration in the discussion here either, because anyone's free to nominate an article for deletion if they think it should be deleted, but for what it's worth I've already said that AFD, not speedy deletion, is how this should have been dealt with in the first place. And if it does get AFDd then I'll make the same arguments in favour of keeping it, it will get input from the wider community, and it can stand on its own merits. ] (]) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Endorse deletion''' Clearly an unnecessary ] and deleted as per policy (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | * '''Endorse deletion''' Clearly an unnecessary ] and deleted as per policy (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
| ***I believe Bwilkins was referring to a ]. But as that guideline states, "''A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject . . . editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material . . . '''This is completely normal Misplaced Pages procedure'''. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article.''" ] (]) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ***I believe Bwilkins was referring to a ]. But as that guideline states, "''A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject . . . editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material . . . '''This is completely normal Misplaced Pages procedure'''. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article.''" ] (]) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ****Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that what we should be discussing here is whether it was valid to cite A10 as the criterion for speedying the article. A10 is to be used when a new article simply recreates an existing one, which this one clearly does not. A10 explicitly does not apply to content forks, ''and'' it does not apply to articles that have a title that is a plausible redirect or that contain referenced, mergeable material. If people feel strongly that the article shouldn't exist because the characters aren't important enough or because there's not enough information to justify it, those are separate issues and they can discussed in context of an AFD. ] (]) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ****Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that what we should be discussing here is whether it was valid to cite A10 as the criterion for speedying the article. A10 is to be used when a new article simply recreates an existing one, which this one clearly does not. A10 explicitly does not apply to content forks, ''and'' it does not apply to articles that have a title that is a plausible redirect or that contain referenced, mergeable material. If people feel strongly that the article shouldn't exist because the characters aren't important enough or because there's not enough information to justify it, those are separate issues and they can discussed in context of an AFD. ] (]) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :I feel it does not expand or improve upon what is already there so is a dupliacate so a10 applys. If you could prove with good sourcing they are a super couple then maybe but as expressed above by another editor I don't think you can. It could of been deleted for copy vios as well. The deleting admins opinion would be helpful though. ] ] 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | :I feel it does not expand or improve upon what is already there so is a dupliacate so a10 applys. If you could prove with good sourcing they are a super couple then maybe but as expressed above by another editor I don't think you can. It could of been deleted for copy vios as well. The deleting admins opinion would be helpful though. ] ] 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've addressed all those issues EW. ] (]) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ::I've addressed all those issues EW. ] (]) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Restore''' Does not meet "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", topic is broader. ] (]) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | * '''Restore''' Does not meet "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", topic is broader. ] (]) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
| *'''List at AfD''' which is the default action we should be pursuing in cases of disputed speedies. ] (]) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''List at AfD''' which is the default action we should be pursuing in cases of disputed speedies. ] (]) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''List at AfD''' per Jclemens and T. Canens.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''List at AfD''' per Jclemens and T. Canens.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Take to AfD'''. Per Alzarian16 really. I don't feel the article should have been deleted under A10 and think AfD would be a better place to discuss this. - ] ] 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Take to AfD'''. Per Alzarian16 really. I don't feel the article should have been deleted under A10 and think AfD would be a better place to discuss this. - ] ] 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Restore''' if anyone wants to take it to AFD then of course they are able to. I'm of the general view that the ill A10 is trying to address is generally moot when dealing with an experienced editor once it's been drawn to their attention it apparently meets the criteria and they still have a reasonable wish to pursue it (if that's by deletion then probably restoration should be on request) - I'm sure I can wrap lots of nuance around that view and leave definition of "experienced" vague. --] (]) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | *'''Restore''' if anyone wants to take it to AFD then of course they are able to. I'm of the general view that the ill A10 is trying to address is generally moot when dealing with an experienced editor once it's been drawn to their attention it apparently meets the criteria and they still have a reasonable wish to pursue it (if that's by deletion then probably restoration should be on request) - I'm sure I can wrap lots of nuance around that view and leave definition of "experienced" vague. --] (]) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Overturn and list at AfD''' This would be the best course of action given debate on whether a10 is valid or whether the article is merited. ] ] 22:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | * '''Overturn and list at AfD''' This would be the best course of action given debate on whether a10 is valid or whether the article is merited. ] ] 22:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| |- | |- | ||
Latest revision as of 19:07, 2 March 2023
< 2011 October 19 Deletion review archives: 2011 October 2011 October 21 >20 October 2011
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm new as a Misplaced Pages editor. I registered a few days ago, soon after discovering that a valuable article that I had consulted previously had been deleted. The article is about a contemporary philosopher, Stephen Palmquist, who, in my opinion, is one of the leading experts on Kant’s philosophy. I located the deleted version, then read the Talk page that ended in the initial deletion decision. I then uploaded my significantly revised version, with numerous changes that I believe satisfy all the requirements of Misplaced Pages's Notability rules, as I understand them. To my surprise, it was deleted via speedy deletion, without any discussion of the merits of its significant revisions! Dao4Andrej (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It is not covered in South African Standard Time, the deleter User:Jimfbleak didn't even bother to make a statement in the talk page, where it clearly says "Namibia is NOT covered in the article South African Standard Time.". TZ master (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
First, I'm a novice at wikipedia and probably will not have the proper editing in this request I find working in Misplaced Pages very complicated and difficult. So I beg forgiveness in advance. That being said, please consider restoring this page (Donald Braswell). It was deleted with a speedy delete without any discussion. I requested it be restored and it was, but before I knew it was back, it was deleted again without discussion and I was not able to modify it. The info in the article is accurate and sanctioned by the talented gentleman I'm trying to honor, but he has been relatively unpublished. He authenticated the data in the article. Could it be put back at least with a brief mention of his achievements that any of these sources can help show that he did exist and was important in his day and enhances the information in wikipedia? Couldn't the pieces that people don't think are documented well enough just be deleted from the article, rather than deleting the entire piece? In my discussions with the admin who did the final deletion, he (politely) felt the additional sources were not enough to overturn the deletion and that there had to be more documentation than this. I'm hoping someone will help me get the page in acceptable format and restored with at least a minimal mention of his career on Broadway. (Without making it a full time job for me to do it.) I do hope those reviewing this deletions will read the original article (if they know how to find it, which I don't). Thank you. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell%2C%20Sr http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/ http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042 http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_bra swell_sr.html http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/ http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don%20Braswell.htm These are the factual highlights of his career that I had in his wiki article, but there is little out there to source it. 1946 Singer/Entertainer At 17 years old Braswell, Sr opened the inaugural ball of newly elected governor of Louisiana, Earl Long 1952 Singer/Entertainer The Vic Dimone Show, Fort Bliss TX 1952 Singer/Entertainer El Paso Symphony Concert 1953 Touchstone Shakespeare's play "As You Like It" - A. A. Milne's play "The Fourth Wall" 6/1954-6/1955 Singer, dancer, & sailor The musical "Fanny" (on Broadway with Florence Henderson) 1955 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The musical "Li'l Abner" (On Broadway) 1956 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The Ed Sulivan Show - episode with skits from Li'l Abner 1956 Filch The opera "The Beggar's Opera" (at the Met) 1956 The Soldier The opera "The Soldier" by Lehman Engel (At the Met) 1958 Finalist Competition with the Met San Antonio Career: 1960-65 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Cantor High Holy Days 1960 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Handel's "Mesiah" 1961 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Verdi's "Requiem" 1962 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Saint-Sans Christmas "Oratorio" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 Freddie The musical "My Fair Lady" 1965 Gangster, Guts Regan Ayn Rand's play "The Night of January 16th" 1968 Cocky The Texas-Mexico Border Tour with the San Antonio Symphony Concerts 1968 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Concert 1968 Singer/Entertainer Hemisfair concert with the San Antonio Symphony (World's Fair 1968) 1965 Balthazzar The opera "Amahl and the Nights Visitors" 1966-69 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Children's Concerts 1972 Pertruchio The musical "Kiss Me Kate" 1974 Hajj The musical "Kismet" 1998 Singer/Entertainer Shreveport Symphony Concert (Louisiana) Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wrong to speedy since reason given, "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", does not apply because the criteria for A10 deletion were not met. Article was also speedied a very short time after creation without a chance to discuss. Deleting admin has so far refused to discuss his rationale, other than to say he endorses another editor's remarks. I initially recreated the article, but have re-deleted it to request deletion review. Please see also discussion on the deleting admin's page. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
DeleteThere is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.RaintheOne 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Grossly wrong to delete it since "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Time_zones)" is not met. TZ master (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |