Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 15: Difference between revisions
Singularity (talk | contribs) close |
→[[:FlyLady]]: closed as overturn; list at AfD |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
====[[:FlyLady]]==== |
====[[:FlyLady]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:FlyLady]]''' – Speedy deletion overturned; sent to AfD. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{la|FlyLady}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/FlyLady|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:FlyLady}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyLady|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|FlyLady}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/FlyLady|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:FlyLady}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyLady|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
Line 93: | Line 101: | ||
*'''Overturn''', G11 is heavy-handed in this case. I can see an AFD nom under [[WP:WEB]], but while the article is, shall we say, upbeat it mostly communicates factual information of varying importance, and the parts that are her philosophy are denoted as such. The article that I see had no nag tags of any sort, and I imagine most of the content has been sitting there untouched from prehistoric Wikipedia before rigorous citation became the standard. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''', G11 is heavy-handed in this case. I can see an AFD nom under [[WP:WEB]], but while the article is, shall we say, upbeat it mostly communicates factual information of varying importance, and the parts that are her philosophy are denoted as such. The article that I see had no nag tags of any sort, and I imagine most of the content has been sitting there untouched from prehistoric Wikipedia before rigorous citation became the standard. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 16:20, 20 July 2007
Dunewood (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted as no sources although it listed 3. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of songs about masturbation (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was nominated for its 4th AFD on 7/4, but the 3rd AFD was accidentally put on the AFD day log. This was not corrected. The error was finally realized and relisted, but Ryulong closed it within 20 minutes, then refused to re-open it. Consensus is totally unclear because this was not properly listed. It's true that the AFD was "open" for 11 days, but only people who had the article watchlisted or otherwise visited the article would see the AFD, this leads to a very skewed consensus that is not useful in saying consensus was to delete an article. Without proper listing, it would be easy to manipulate the system to generate "consensus" deletes or even keeps for articles by controlling who's likely to know about them, and those consensus are not very meaningful. The community needs to be notified that an article is actually on AFD, and have a few days to respond, if the AFD is to be fully valid. This needs to be relisted properly so we can see what consensus actually is, but Ryulong refuses. This is not "process for the sake of process" - I have no idea what consensus would have been after 5 days of AFD. We shouldn't delete articles on such shaky ground. W.marsh 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
FlyLady (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article existed since 2005, but was deleted with the reason "Speedy deleted per (CSD a7), was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject.. using TW)". Isn't having 380,000 members an assertion of notability? Aren't bestseller books (Body Clutter, "Sink Reflections") an assertion of notability? The article also contained external links to The FLY Show on World Talk Radio (but the link was dead), and an article on FlyLady by the author Karen Kohlhaas. Aren't these assertion of notability? How else do you "assert" notability of such a group? FlyLady has been given non-trivial coverage by almost every single notable newspaper in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.google.co.in/archivesearch?q=flylady The article had been tagged with speedy deletion earlier as well, but the tag was removed by an administrator saying that it does not qualify as speedy (I can't remember the name of the administrator, because the article has been deleted and history is not available). Then why was it deleted this time? If there are no references in the article, shouldn't it be tagged with {{unreferenced}} instead of being speedy-deleted? Thank you for your consideration. 202.54.176.11 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |