The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was originally deleted by nomination.
Ok can some please assist me here as I think the point of my request for review is being lost. You can remove any references to the sportsbank as I beleive the merits of the indivudual and the article stand on their own. This is not in any way about self-promotion for any site I'm affiliated with. I aplogize if my criticsim of the nominating editor was taken as an attack but if you review the comments about the person I wrote about was also slammed by the editors referred to as a buffoon and an idiot. Is this fair? Mr. Ritzman you have been fair and helpful in this review and I truly thank you for that. The only request that I have is that the article is reviewed based on the merits I presented. The article was deleted based on the fact that there was no citations and no verifiable sources outside of the sportsbank. I provided many more citations, external links to multiple media outlets where the person has made appearences. Simply stated, what more do I need to to to establish notabilty? Can we please focus this review on the content and not poor wording choices on my part? I have not seen an arguement in favor of deletion based on the reasons the article was originally deleted. I provided citations and verifiable links, none of which are associated with the sportsbank. Can we please make the basis of resotration consideration start with the corrections I have made? All endorsement for deletions are being made on the basis of the orginal article, not the one I just created. As I am a sportwriter in Chicago and a stringer for the Washington Times, would any topic I write about in Chicago Sports or in D.C. politics present a conflict of interest? Thanks for any consideration you can provide and again. SportsbankSportsbank (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So how exactly is someone with a verifiable history of media coverage and notability suddenly deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia page? There were plenty of citations and references to Soxman outside of The Sports Bank which were wholly disregarded by the deleting party. It now seems this appeal has turned into an argument of semantics, instead of focusing of the real issue at hand (Soxman is deserving of an entry as a notable member of the Chicago White Sox fanbase, just as Ronnie Woo Woo does. Please address the proper concerns rather than worrying about the context of the comments in the debate. Anderspc (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I’m one of Soxman’s fans, a Chicago native and actually a Cub’s fan who reads his works for the commuter edition of the Chicago Tribune. I would gladly attempt to submit and article for him, but honestly the second submission is better than what I could write as it covers all elements that I would put in the submission, and links that I would consider verifiable. Even the first submission which appears to have existed challenge free for almost three years was well-written, but some content appeared to be based more on his lore than verifiable content. Funny, one of the links the writer submitted is to a superstation WGN piece of Ronnie Woo and Soxman. So how one can be considered “wiki worthy” and the other not, is somewhat confusing to me. I’d gladly re-write the article if someone can take the time to tell me how to improve the May submission beyond what’s there. Otherwise I vote to expediently restore the second submission. Worldofwikicraft (talk) 20:22, 3 June 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. |
Spartaz closed the debate with a mere 'The result was "Keep"' without explicitly stating which articles to keep, as there were several in that debate. As there was only one real vote (and that was to delete) on this particular Wangtang, either an AFD for it needs to be opened or we duke it out here. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Sustain the close, as either keep or non-consensus and if desired, nominate this village individually at a new AfD. This is not the place to discuss the underlying merits of the case. The close was correct--there was no way of being sure of delete from the material presented in the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 31 May 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. |
The deleting admin is not active according to another admin. I have substantially edited the article. It has become a separate article for the University seal. I believe a separate article is necessary to represent the seal of the university which itself has a significant and colorful history. College insignias are also substantially edited to inform/educate the readers the 400 years-rich tradition of the university. I'll be changing the images into the valid ones as soon as this article is undeleted. Planning to change the title to University of Santo Tomas insignias. Pampi1010 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |