![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I would like to have it in my userspace. It is an older project of mine that I never got around to expand it before it got deleted. I want to model List of elements after some ideas I had there. -Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Was a contested PROD (if I remember correctly) and as such shouldn't be eligible for CSD. -Cyclopiatalk 22:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I am now the Public Affairs Specialist for the 84th Training Command. Maj. Gen. Talley is the commanding general. I was told this morning I am now responsible for updating his Wki page. I believe it was deleted because whomever posted it, didn't include references. I have those. Please let me know if this can be undeleted or if I need to start a new page. Thank you. -Arsarge13 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are other commander's bios, like Jack C. Stultz, the Chief, Army Reserve. My commanding general wants his page to look like LTG Stultz's. I'm not sure how posting someone's bio violates the conflicts of interest. The general's aide says he's not sure how it was titled; either MG Jeffrey W. Talley, or without the rank.
Okay. So how does someone's bio get posted? I'm sure David Petraus or Colin Powell didn't post their own, or Jack C. Stultz. It came from their PAO. This isn't positive or negative, it's a nuetral piece, straight from the US Army Reserve website.
The software is notable. In fact, it is very good. -Grozo (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious to see the article's history, but it will be a redirect to Fudhail Bin Iyadh anyway. -Kimse (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
And:
Same reason and same purpose as above. Thanks. -Kimse (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know why my page was deleted. It has been up for three years (I believe), and nobody has ever questioned its validity. I am a well-known author and blogger, whose material is used in college syllabi worldwide. I run with many new media types and am considered a major thought leader in the world of local media. My entry contained a reference to a news story of the day. I could go on, but I'm mostly just curious as to how a Wikipedia entry, which has been in place for so long, can be arbitrarily removed in a day without discussion. I'm sure this must be some sort of mistake. I've long been a vocal, public supporter of Wikipedia, even when others were ridiculing the place, and I hate that this has happened. Please reconsider this decision, or at least be so kind as to discuss it with me. This is very important to me. Thank you very much. -TerryHeaton (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
— Scientizzle 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Terry Heaton was deleted by Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs) as a violation of the Wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This deletion occured during the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Heaton. Please see the comments at that deletion discussion. If you would like to challenge the deletion, you should talk to Kimchi.sg directly or request a deletion review.
--TerryHeaton (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It has been said that the entry was "blatant promotion" and that the source links were from my blog. Again, let me state that I didn't write the page, although I certainly consider myself notable. As to the promotional aspects, that's a specious argument, because any living notable person's entry could be deemed such by someone with the absolute power to delete arbitrarily. I spent a few minutes on Google and Google News. Here are some links:
Google news in the past month alone: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-morning-lowdown-09.27.10/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/09/this-week-in-review-apples-subscription-plan-the-exodus-from-objectivity-and-startup-guides-galore/ http://www.themediamanager.com/3/post/2010/09/terry-heatons-pomo-blog-on-the-frustration-about-web-page-views.html
Google: First couple of pages: http://tvspy.com/nexttv/nexttvcolumn.cfm?t_content_cat_id=10 http://www.mediabloggers.org/robert-cox/terry-heaton-explains-what-is-really-at-stake-at-spectrial-boxee http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/ http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2004/08/decentralizatio.html
I also found syllabi from Harvard, Stanford and Columbia
Blatant promotion? I would love the chance to argue that in person, but that's apparently not how things are done around here. And the real insanity of this is that I have been a vocal and public supporter of Wikipedia since its inception. 'Nuff said —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs)
Well, I appreciate any help I can get here, so thanks. None of this answers the question about why now. That page has been up for years. It passed muster before. I'm serious about needing to know why the finger was pointed at it now. I have been such a staunch supporter of Wikipedia and the process that I'm shocked this has happened, and I really want to know why somebody did this today. As to the issues of promotion, I am known for Heatonisms. It's part of my notoriety. As mentioned earlier, you could make the same case for any living notable. And I honestly don't know why I'm sitting here arguing this point. It is separate from the question of why now. Why after years of being a part of Wikipedia is it suddenly removed? I want to get to the bottom of it, because if this can happen to me, it can happen to anybody, and I'm not happy. Thanks again, seriously, for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs)
There is a whole walled garden of articles, all created by one author, Hollygirl78 (talk · contribs), who is a single-purpose account writing only on these subjects: Terry Heaton, Jerry Gumbert (Heaton's boss), Gordon Borrell, Borrell Associates (his company), Kip Cassino (his VP). All cross-referring, with quotes from each used to boost the other: Heaton "regularly cites Borrell’s work in his books" Borrell says of Heaton: "When you die, I'm going to lead the charge to have your brain pickled and put on display at the Smithsonian." Heaton says: "How would we know, for example, that pureplay Web companies were our real enemy without Borrell?"
They are written in a promotional PR-speak style full of peacock terms: "profoundly influential in the world of media strategy", "prolific author", "crowning achievement", "few organizations approach their level of influence", "established itself as the premier company in the field", "influence has steadily grown"...
It's hard to tell under the fluff and mutual praise whether there is real notability here, but I think it is possible. Perhaps we should reopen the AfD on Borrell Associates as well as Heaton (we'll probably get a REFUND request for that soon) and see whether people think encyclopedic articles are possible.
Mr Heaton, the reason for concern here is that Wikipedia is very vulnerable to being used for promotion and very sensitive to any sign of that, and has strong policies against editing with a conflict of interest. The answer to your question, Why now? is probably that it has only just been realised that all these interconnecting articles were from a single SPA author; some of her edit summaries such as "Mr. Gordon Borrell gave me permission to use this photograph" and "Letter from Jerry regarding permissions has already been sent" make clear that she is at least in touch with her subjects, and the strong impression given is of a co-ordinated PR push. That is the likely reason why all the articles were recently deleted as promotional. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
TerryHeaton (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Terry Heaton here again. Can somebody please tell me how I request a formal review of this decision? I've been writing comments here and elsewhere, but I don't understand the process and want to make sure I'm not missing anything. How do I have my day in court? Thanks for everybody's help so far. I think I have a good idea of what went down.
TerryHeaton (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Thank you, Mike. Having never done any of this stuff before, it's a little intimidating.
reasoning -59.92.5.202 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Joe Conway · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
deleted with no discussion -andycjp (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC) andycjp (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
i want to create this article because omer bhatii is now an artist with his own records and a famous personality for a lot of his fans -Avlakop (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
reasoning -202.168.106.124 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry in advance if I may be posting via the wrong process, but this is such a maze that I can't follow.
The Pe2elf article was deleted as being not notable or some such. Original proposal stated "I can't find significant coverage for this software" on 16 December 2009, and the article deleted just SIX days later, on 22 December 2009.
What sort of review process is that?! Six days from proposal to deletion might be appropriate for illegal content, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Imagine the article is a book that your propose to burn. Just because it's of no interest to you, doesn't mean it's of no interest to someone else (eg. me, in this case). I'm really disgusted right now, with your cavalier attitude at destroying potentially valuable and rare information. You are no different to the book burners of the Nazi era. (Yes, I do think you people act too much like dictators nowadays.)
If you want to delete content just because you don't find it interesting, at least provide some means whereby such uncontroversial content can be retrieved. Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't show this page, perhaps it was only up for a brief period? This page is referenced at other places, such as http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Pe2elf but the content that was here, isn't.
Joe.
Not done The deletion was the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pe2elf - take it to WP:Deletion review Skier Dude (talk 04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
-Fahamid (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I used the wrong code when requesting help from the help desk on the deletion review of this page. Possible for it to go through normal deletion review? -lksriv (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
ADDING SOURCES -Adityakalki9 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason given for deletion was "OR", which i assume stands for Original Research ; it is however not original research, but rather what i gather from what i learned at school (Delft University of Technology, department of Electrical Engineering). I wrote this article because there was an other article about magnetism, that was marked as in need of expert attention, which i edited a bit, and decided to put the Ampere model as a separate topic to not clutter that article too much.
In my opinion, this article about Ampere model is Necessary for understanding relation between old units of magnetism (Gauss and Oersted), which are cgs units, and new units of magnetism (Ampere per meter and Tesla), which are SI units. Also for most users this article would be necessary to understand how to interpret Ampere and meter in unit Ampere per meter.
I don't visit my user page often, and the page was deleted before i saw the deletion proposal, and the admin who deleted it (Fastily) has retired from wikipedia, so i hope this request will restore the page.-Siwardio (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
-89.165.11.149 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Forwarded Message ----
From: Dr. Abbas Milani amilani@stanford.edu Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 9:14:53 AM Subject: "Sima Yari "
Dear Sir/Madam: It has come to my attention that the entry on Ms Sima Yari has been, for some reason, eliminated from the Wikipedia. I know of her work, her published poetry, and the defiance of her voice. May be it is just this defiance that has caused the malignant urge of some unknown force or person to try to eliminate her. I have been under the impression that yours is a site given to the democratic reflection of a plurality of voices; judgment on the ultimate quality of each voice is up to the readers and critics, and should not be left to those who have the patience or know-how to act as censors and forces of elimination. There is often not much of a distance between elimination from the page to elimination from the public domain, and even more, physical elimination. We must stop the shameful process where it begins. Restate her entry for she deserves presence, and not elimination. Best, Abbas Milani
Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies
Research Fellow/Hoover Institution
Stanford University
417 Galvez Mall,
Encina Hall West, Room 210
Stanford, CA 94305-6045
Tel: 650.721.4052
Fax: 650.723.3010
The deleter's claim that the author of a document is irrelevant is clearly absurd and partisan. The article points out dozens of other people who are supporters and opponents of the proposition. Why is this one name singled out? -Novophaedrus (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
user who deleted article cited it was spam which is entirely untrue. There are many references in the article to 3rd party resources which cite the significance of CollegeBlender why it is worthy of an article. It is the first and only web community dedicated entirely to college students and the content they create across various channels. CollegeBlender also has a history behind it seeing as it came from The College Blog Network (whose wikipedia article become CollegeBlender). Additionally, many sites have linked to CollegeBlender's wikipedia article when speaking about its significance and history, all those links are now broken. There is no reason this article should have been deleted, CollegeBlender is a unqiue and significant social networking platform for college students which merits a wikipedia article documenting it's history, purpose and goals, in much the same sense Foursquare deserves a wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foursquare_(social_networking)), neither of which are spam. Referencing blogs as sources is not a reason for deletion either, blogs are the news sources of the internet age. Only articles relevant to the topic of CollegeBlender and it's history and/or significance were cited. -Dwasyluk (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Obfuscation by the financial cabal has prevented the evolution of clear, consice and descriptive terminology like this that is important in making the public more informed of the workings of financial institutions. I have made improvements to the deleted article at User:Juxo/Draftspace/Reverse financial instrument. This article should be undeleted because it is very educational. -Juxo (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi My contribution has been deleted. Minesweeper Biz is a firm which provides thought leadership on Intranet and application, i.e. why this article was written.
If you cannot un delete it, I have a request, can you also delete the topic. In google search Minesweeper Biz Wiki search is resulting in a content which wrong positions the search and the firm.
So request you to please the Minesweeper Biz word (the name of the article) entirely, so that it does not appears in Wiki google search also.
Many thanks.
Regards, Mayankb email: mayankb@minesweeperbiz.com -Myankb (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an important list in the history of thought leaders and the origin of all thought leadership lists. -Azikate (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is not disparaging to a person's character if that is the person that they are truly portraying. Also, the truth was brought out in all statements involved. Freedom of speech, regardless of him running for political office. If you don't want your dirty laundry to be aired don't create the dirty laundry in the first place. All articles about Jon Levenson (politician) were truthful and people have the right to know the kind of candidate they may or may not be voting for.
Not done This was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Levenson (politician) - please take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Skier Dude (talk 06:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Video conferencing application. Lacks any substantial coverage from reliable sources (and I was unable to find any in a quick search). Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Covered in large tech blogs online like these: Arianna Huffington: http://huff.to/cRrau3 / Tony Robbins: http://huff.to/cRFrVv / http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/07/16/vokle-wants-to-give-everyone-a-custom-video-conference-platform/ Building43: http://www.building43.com/videos/2009/12/24/a-distributed-tv-station/
reasoning -Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This photo is mine. It was taken on my camera by a farmhand (name unknown) - hence I am in the photo - at Zahariche, the ranch of the Miura family. It is also unique as the only photo in existence of the two Miura brothers together on their ranch, alongside their matador nephew, Maestro Dávila Miura.
Please do NOT delete the article. The reason for the proposed deletion is: No evidence from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC. No recordings on major labels or notable indie labels. This is total non-sense. The band released the CD "Peaceful Death And Pretty Flowers" on Metal Blade/Warner Brothers labels. Are these 2 not major labels? Later 2 CDs were rereleased on Relapse records. It's also a pretty big metal label. So please leave the article alone. -Metaleonid (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Metaleonid (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I think someone removed PROD template. There's a different template now. I added a few references on that page including reference to Metal Blade releases history and Dead Horse page on Relapse Records website. As for the Warner Bros. records.... I am unable to find references on internet that it their 2nd CD was distributed by WB. However, I have the original CD which was pressed on Warner Bros. When I have a time, I will scan the back cover of it and upload it.
Trying to create a wiki page for Laura "Lollip0p" Massey from Xbox. If you listen to Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb's podcast he talks about how the community has not made her a page yet. I tried to make a legit page and found it to be on a deleted page? I made some edits on oct26th 2am and found them delete. I would like to be able to create/edit a page for Laura Massey she also runs http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/Home -Gregsteimel (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an informative article about a notable application and is not advertising. it is no different in tone and content than then 100+ iOS game pages on Wikipedia -98.228.226.40 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
98.228.226.40 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why my article was deleted. -Exarp 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Taken by Me. Owned by Me. I give CC attributon share-alike licence on this image - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -Willwade (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The note said "not notable". Sigma Partners is a very notable VC firm, with notable partners. Bob Davoli (see his article) was recently called a "legendary investor" in the Boston Globe. Gardner Hendrie, an early partner at the firm, is a trustee of the computer history museum, was a technical founder of Stratus Computers. Greg Gretsch and Bob Davoli have both been on the Fortune Midas list more than once.
Sigma was founded in 1984 and made investments in industry defining companies like PSInet (early ISP), Electronic Arts, Vermeer Technologies (bought by MSFT and helped them become an internet company), Vignette (first commercial content management system), EqualLogic (the LARGEST ever all-cash acquisition of a VC backed company).
I think this makes the firm notable. -Rdale (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
wrongful deletion -WolfDogLover (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It was a misunderstanding -WolfDogLover (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tamaskan people were angry because a Tamaskan WOLFDOG is something totally different. There was NOTHING bad in that article and the Tamaskan people were not even mentioned! I'm not impressed because they actually edited to say things like "the only breeder is a puppy mill" and other slanderous / libelous comments which I either explain the reasoning or deleted because they were false. It's total hypocrisy. NOTHING was wrong with that article.
reasoning -Vicperotti (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The concern was: Trivial or non-notable neologism, and an essay of unsourced original research.
While it has taken some time for academia to create published research in this area, it is now widely available. In fact, published Digital Entrepreneurship research includes authors from University of Hawaii, Long Island University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Memorial University in Canada and more.
Furthermore, The Knight and Kauffman foundations have funded the Digital Media Entrepreneurship center at ASU to further the study of this area.
Today, Digital Entrepreneurship is an active area of research across the world. It refers to the new business forms and practices enabled by technology advances, particularly Internet and Communication Tech advances.
I'd like to request the articles be restored back, so I can merge them together into the recently created List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. The articles were deleted through AfD, but List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events was created after they were deleted.--hkr Laozi speak 00:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) -hkr Laozi speak 00:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted on sight by an administrator without discussion as "no longer needed/relevant". The only other place I can find this information is in the deletion policy, which is ten times the size, split over multiple pages, full of information unrelated to the question "how do I delete a page?" and unintelligible to new contributors. This page was created precisely to address these problems. -Gurch (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
reasoning -Angelxone (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Having exhausted other attempts to resolve this, I now bring my request to the formal process. The page was recommended for deletion by ChrisConnors, who told me via his talk page that he discovered it was part of a "walled garden of spam created by hollygirl78." While that explains how he came across my page, it did not justify deletion alone, so he said it didn't fit Wikipedia's notability requirements. He directed me to admin Kimchi, who explained that the page "seems sufficiently non-neutral to qualify as advertising."
So there are three issues: the walled garden of spam, notability and advertising.
Let me begin a defense by confessing a degree of ignorance about the proceedings here and apologizing for my clumsiness. This page has been up for years and has made its way into Google searches of my name. I've always felt proud to have the page, and it hurts to have it arbitrarily yanked without a hearing or the opportunity to edit offending portions. The "walled garden" is indefensible, because it's a judgment call on your part that you certainly have the right to make. It is, however, subjective, and it was made without due diligence on behalf of the people about whom the pages were written. For myself, I can only say that I didn't write the page. Its weaknesses in terms of associated links and validated notability, therefore, are not my fault, although I'm the one left to bear the consequences. Don't you think I at least deserve a hearing?
On the matter of notability, I spent 10 minutes on simple Google and Google News searches to find links to me and my work, including syllabi from Harvard, Stanford and Columbia. It's very awkward and assuming to have to defend one's notability, and again, the opportunity to edit the page to satisfy this argument was never offered.
On the matter of advertising, when I pressed on this, I was told that the real objection was to certain adjectives and prose on the page. I believe one sentence referred to a "crowning achievement." Again, I didn't write the page, but the opportunity to edit it to satisfy language requirements was never offered either. I stated, rightly I think, that any living notable's page could be considered advertising. It's a matter of the words used in the person's description, and words can be edited.
Within the body of my work, there are many references to Wikipedia. I have been a staunch and outspoken proponent of the process since the beginning, always defending Jimmy Wales and you -- the very people who have axed my page. You have a tough, tough job, and I admit that. However, this event has colored my view of things, because it appears that here, like everywhere, human nature trumps procedure in administering justice. I believe my page was hastily steamrolled, because you were offended by this alleged "walled garden of spam" -- a serious, serious accusation made on the basis of appearance alone.
I ask that the page please be undeleted, at least so that it can be edited to pass muster. Thank you very much. -TerryHeaton (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
TerryHeaton (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)OrangeMike and Protonk, thank you for your help. Again, I apologize for my clumsiness. Is it permitted for me to edit "my" page? How do I go about doing this? What kind of help can I provide? And, Mike, "restored to a sandbox" is Greek to me, totally. I love your language, but what is a "bizarre assertion of importance," especially if it's made by somebody else? Just as you assert that the prose of that page was over-the-top, so do I feel that your use of such drama is likewise a bit much. The difference, of course, is that you're in charge. And again, you must understand how uncomfortable it is for me to be even asking for this consideration, and I wouldn't be doing if the page hadn't been up for so long pumping out Google Juice for the world to see. Thanks again for your trouble and your help.
TerryHeaton (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Okay, I just clicked on the link to the "sandbox," and I've got to tell you that I agree with what's been said about the page. It's been so long since I read the thing, and I've been influenced by this dialog. I'll spend a couple of days with it and remove or validate the claims. Thanks again. Terry
Ah - I would like my userpage back now please :) Deleted under WP:CSD#U1. -Arctic Night 07:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted under WP:CSD#U1, I would like it back now please. -Arctic Night 07:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 deletion that I now need info from. -Arctic Night 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 deletion that I now need info from. -Arctic Night 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 deletion that I now need info from. -Arctic Night 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I recall looking at this before and adding a source. The topic has some merit and so I would like it back to develop further. -Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 I would now like back -Arctic Night 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 I would now like back -Arctic Night 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Courcelles 15:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
they created five feature films, two of them on significant historical issues, and sponsor an interesting parade. why are they less significant than others? why was this deletion not even discussed by the community? why is this process subject to the whims of one person? -67.250.44.160 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
unfair deletion, the article was written following guidelines for band pages and had references about notability -NikoDisorder (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)