Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muthuwella (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 2 December 2010 (→‎Anushka Wirasinha). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2010 November 28
2010 November 30 >

29 November 2010

Marshal Walker (closed)

Anushka Wirasinha

Anushka Wirasinha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An author page was created for this author in 2008 by someone. It was included in wikipedia as it met notabiity criteria. There were some edits done but poorly done but article remained for 2 yrs till 2010. An unusual email was sent by an unknown source to wiki foundation via an email claiming some issues that were not quite correct but it led to deletion of the article even though there was interest in adding further material and comments by certain users that it had met notability criteria through verifiable sources that were relliable. Another editor created a new page for the author and I also worked on getting more material done. The article seemed to have met notability criteria in a number of ways. WP:ACADEMICS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTTEMP and WP:RS Despite meeting technical criteria and these discussed, while the discussion was on going the article was deleted by an admin. Editors were in the process of collecting further archived works from foreign sources that shows further notability when the article was deleted. Translations were also being done and alot of this work that many editors incuding myself were doing came to an end. Attempts to contact the admins are of little luck and I was wondering if the article can be sent to the incubator so work can continue on it and we do not lose the work already done.I understand the difficulty in getting material in foreign countries but we have taken a lot of effort to contact persons in those countries to get the article done well. We just want to keep working on this for a few more days to include everything.

In my view notability is met with the following:

  • Three IT books (Visually Learn PC, On Your Marks Net Set Go, Surviving in an e-world and Flash in a Flash: web development) published by well known traditional publisher Prentice Hall India are used as University textbooks and course material in several universities in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.
  • Other books including "Study buddy" is used in Sri Lanka schools and endorsed by the Sri Lanka education board to be used in schools in the country.
  • Books have been used as school textbooks, university textbooks and course material for over 10 years.
  • Author has introduced a new concept of Computer art and animation to schools and verifiable by the schools and reliable mainstream newspapers.
  • Author's books of IT when published by Prentice Hall India were the first IT books written by a Sri Lankan in Sri Lanka in English to be published by an international publisher.
  • Her books were in the India Times bestseller list (need few days to get the archives content)
  • Several mainstream newspapers and magazines have written articles about her and interviews are there in well known sources. (another editor scanned and had included these images but due to copyright it has been temporarily removed till copyright is obtained. Meanwhile it is temporarily on flikr page for that editor.)

Discussion was taking place on how better to improve this article and some admins were helping with useful comments and we were all trying to get a good article put together. It is really not about getting the article on wikipedia but rather I am determined to give any article the chance to give the best shot at showing editors why it should be included. This article has not been given that chance. There is much more material that is different and relevant to determining its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamithra (talk • contribs)

  • Please list the reliable sources you suggest that we use for an article about this lady. I have some concerns about the sources that were used in the deleted version of the article.—S Marshall T/C 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent published sources. I didn't find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources, but you are losing your argument by citing evidence of her importance. Everyone is important, but it takes being noticed to a significant degree by independent published sources to get a biographical article in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-List I don't know why Chanithra listed this in deletion review as even though it should be relisted so Sri Lanka editors can edit it, it's not happening even after showing tons of sources as admins are dead set on getting rid of it. User: Uzma Gamal, Answering your comment "find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources". There are TONS of links that were put. Didn't you see the Island Newspaper, Sunday Leader, Business Today and all the mag articles I put in flikr temporarily so the sources can be seen? She is noted to a significant degree. I am not saying she is important, the sources prove it.

If you need specific evidence ask me and I can e-mail or put on flikr. I took the stuff down as I didn't want a copyright issue but if it is needed as proof, I'd put it. Also I don't think anyone can deny that the books are textbooks in a number of very reputable Universities in many countries. Do a google search and you will find them. Otherwise, see the links I have put on her page that was deleted.

  • Endorse the single purpose editors have been constantly appearing at these AfDs, the consensus was well established to delete. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-List the consensus was not clear. The editors have stated many times to keep it for further discussion but the administrators are just not looking at the credentials of this subject. She was included in 2008 because she was notable. As one administrator put it correctly there was an "unusual" trigger to delete this sent to OTRS. If didn't come through normal circumstances that lead to believe that the author is being targeted wrongly. Despite a relist I see it was deleted by an admin. Then the page recreated but the earlier admin is no longer there. I feel the editors whould decide on this. Re-list, keep it for discussion open to editors and anyone who wants to improve it and then if nothing, delete it. Give it a fair chance.
  • Endorse I commented at the AfD, but decided to not express an opinion. This is an interesting borderline case, where the WP:PROF requirement (and conceivably the GNG) is technically met, but the person is not by common sense standards clearly notable. Common sense has to be judged by the consensus. I do not support an over-literal reading of notablity guidelines to artificially include articles any more than I support using them to artificially delete them. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This author claims notability for authoring books "of university level", yet to read the refs cited to support this (their pitiful grammar and spelling apart) is to degrade the whole notion of what "university level" means. These books might have been recommended, but not by credible courses at a serious level of study. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andy Dingley, I have no idea what your problem is. If her books are used in 25 Universities as a textbook, then it is "university level". She is not just saying university level, the universities have listed them as textbooks. You are blatantly untrue in your nasty comments. They are credible as they are listed as mandatory textbooks in these universities. I see bias in your comments as you are not taking a fact into account. If universities list these books as textbooks, then they are university level. What do you mean pitiful grammar and spelling? Please clarify your comments. Sources2 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how did Sources2 (talk · contribs) know to come here on their first edit? LibStar (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a search on Anushka Wirasinha as I saw the article up for deletion and then when I checked it said deletion review on top of the page, so I clicked it.
  • Harassment Why are all the Admins being nasty and trying to delete this author from United Kingdom? The only not bias admin here is DGG (talk · contribs) as he is the only one who is actually giving any valid points. The others are all from UNITED KINGDOM and are all having one aim to harass the author. Andy Dingley is way out of line. It doesn't matter what he thinks the books are textbooks in well known universities in many countries and this is a notability criteria under wikipedia. Andy Digney has claimed by his ill thought out poor taste comment that half the Indian Universities that use this authors publications are not "credible"- as he states "not by credible courses at a serious level of study" What do you call the BTech exam? Not credible??

Please note that you may have some sort of brain block where you cannot properly deduct facts but facts remain facts and your comments show that you need to get an education before you wrongly degrade foreign authors and universities. I have no interest in wikipedia, I joined this conversation because I went through all the Admins who are degrading this article and see that they are all from the UK. Maybe some are disgruntled employees from her establishment in the UK.

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is fairly new to me but seems to be the recommended procedure. Deleted category as I felt that reflect consensus at CfD and this was disputed at WikiProject Baseball. Some discussion ensued on my talk page. Procedural listing in which I do not hold a strong opinion either way. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as I agree with the argurments put up in the discussion and would add that categorizing by a single action in a game would be the equivalent of picking any other random action in a game and categorizing by it. You can't look up a pinch hitter on a team roster as the position does not exist. The fact that a few players only ever performed that action in their career does not make it a position. All that being said I have no problem with a relisting. But not an outright restore. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. For the vast majority of players, the fact that they pinch hit is not a defining characteristic. I agree with the comparison I read elsewhere that this is comparable to a category for players who hit 4th in the batting order. --Kbdank71 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (orig nominator). I understand the idea that there are some players who only were ever pinch hitters in their careers and never played a defensive position or were in a starting line-up, but they are a miniscule minority compared to the total number of players who have been pinch hitters. I suppose we could re-list this due to limited participation, but I wouldn't anticipate that a different result would be likely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - The category is appropriate for players who never played a defensive position. While such players are few in proportion to the thousands of major league baseball players, there were a non-trivial number of players whose sole major league appearances were as pinch hitters. I am not sure that "pinch hitter" is not a defensive position or a position listed on a roster matters in the context of retaining or deleting the category. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not a fan of these procedural nominations, it's the second of the kind in a few days. I think we should leave it to the unhappy customers to decide that they want to take the step from questioning the deletion to filing a DRV. It seems to me that a fair bit of the dispute could be resolved by the definition of the category. Is it limited to players who only ever pinch-hit? Does it extend to players who ever fulfilled the role of pinch-hitter? Or is it somewhere in between? The fact that a very small number of players fall into the first category doesn't seem to me to be a problem with adopting that as the scope. I tend to think we should treat low-participation CfDs like prods and send them back for another round (relist) if there are reasonable objections.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can send it back for another round, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a different outcome. CfD is (inevitably) controlled by those editors who're concerned about categories. In practice this is quite a small subset of Wikipedians and they tend to share the same view. What I'd say to Rambo's Revenge is, please don't procedurally list CfDs at DRV. I agree with everything Mkativerata says, and over and above that I think there are non-trivial technical difficulties with overturning a CfD. (What happens is that the category is deleted and then a bot removes all the now-redlinked categorisations from the articles; on the only occasion I know of when a CfD was ever overturned at DRV, which I think was in March 2009, I believe that the bot's actions had to be reversed manually.) In other words, if you're not sure about the closure of a CfD, then it really is a great deal easier not to close it in the first place.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - This category is useful in organizing players by position. I have used it while creating pages for players who never held any other position either offensive or defensive. There are at least a dozen such players, because that's how many pages I used this category on before it was deleted. The only alternative for such players would be to put them in the overly generic "Major League baseball players" category which tells you nothing about what they did in the majors. Others have suggested that it would be useful for categorizing players who were well known for their pinch hitting skills or who hold pinch hitting records. I would have no objection to it being used for that purpose as well. The two most respected and used baseball sites here on Wikipedia are MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com. They both recognize pinch hitter as a position for the purposes of their categorization of players, and I don't see why we shouldn't either. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There are plenty of reliable sources that categorize players as pinch hitters and there's no reason that we shouldn't be grouping players as such where sources have defined them in the pinch hitting role. There was inadequate discussion of the issue at CfD and there should be broader discussion and participation before deciding either way on this category. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no position here, as just about everyone's been a pinch hitter at some point. Category:Major League Baseball players without positions seems a much stronger possibility, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_29&oldid=400043982"