Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Nobody (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 23 April 2008 (→List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:11, 23 April 2008 by A Nobody (talk | contribs) (→List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre: o)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< April 22	Deletion review archives: 2008 April	April 24 >

23 April 2008

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

no consensus to delete... more users in this discussion supported either keeping or merging information, and argued that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. Just curious how then the closing admin used this as the only rationale to delete? HokieRNB (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

comment The relevant AfD is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination). Not yet have informed an opinion on this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Overturn closure. AfD may not be a vote, but 9 good faith editors arguing to keep is "no consensus". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 14:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PyTables

Please userfy the page, in the interests of don't bite the newbies. http://www.pytables.org/ is GPL, so any copyright violation is debatable rather than blatant. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish National Teachers' Organisation

Please restore to my userspace so I can address the reasons for the original deletion Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

James Wesley Rawles

passes WP:BIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" His book was published by a professional publishing house and only self republished after the company went out of business. He was quoted by CNN on 4/20 and the NYTimes 4/6 showing that he is considered an expert in his field. He was the editor of an industry magazine: Defense Electronics magazine, one of his papers is quoted in papers from NASA and the Australian military. The article needs work, no doubt about it, but isn't one of the tenets of WP that we should repair articles that can be salvaged rather than deleting them? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse closure of a heavily-socked AFD. I can see a case for near-notability but every single avenue comes with reservations (or outright exaggerations). Yes, he published a book, but it has not been shown that book was reviewed in reliable and independent sources. Just publishing, even by a commercial house, is not a claim to notability. Yes, he is quoted in articles by reliable sources, but he is not the primary subject of those articles and barely more than incidental in some cases. Yes, he is widely published, but clear precedent for journalists excludes those who have written a lot but not been written about. Yes, he was an associate editor of a magazine, but he was not the editor. Many people may be quoted in papers because they said something pertinent or quotable. Nothing here establishes clear-cut notability. Close in some ways, but this isn't horseshoes. In any case, we are not disputing the case for notability here, we are reviewing the close of the AFD, and when you discount the !votes of dubious IPs and possible socks, you don't have a consensus to keep. If Legotech wants to work on the article in userspace, I have no objection. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)