Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:51, 14 September 2006

< September 8	September 10 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

9 September 2006

Piotr blass

I request review of deletion of piotr blass page also the editing of zariski surface page thanks dr piotr blass—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piotr Blass (talk • contribs) .

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr blass

Comment Most recent AFD (linked prior line) resulted in speedy G4 with a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass. Can an admin check whether the two articles are substantially similar? The second AFD suggests it, but isn't clear and convincing. For those who wish to see the page, it was userfied to User:Piotr Blass. Speedy deleting administrator notified. GRBerry 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Every single article was written by the person it was about (Piotr Blass (talk · contribs)), in violation of WP:VAIN, and in each incarnation it was exactly the same. It had been recreated no less than 10 times. I have a thread on WP:ANI concerning this editor. He has good intentions, it's just that he continues to write his autobiography, after it was AfD'd once, userfied once, and speedied 8 times. Ryūlóng 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I can't find a version which gets anywhere close to WP:NPOV, both process and policy apear to have been followed here. Guy 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 3 was delted some time ago for unknown reason. The page was created the second time with no proof links but info was featured in a magazine that couldn't be accessed online. I didn't understand that but now I have found more proof and believe that the page should be re-created. http://www.onlineseats.com/the-cheetah-girls-tickets/index.asp

Thank You User:Jtervin (Not signed in)

Endorse deletion. The relevant line from the cited source is "The newest sequel The Cheetah Girls 3 is currently under script development and is said to be a theatrical release" (my emphasis added). In no way can wording like this constitute verification of anything. Fan-1967 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, crystall balling. There is no deadline to meet. Guy 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The previous AfD that deleted the article was done within process. All information relating to a third Cheetah Girls movie has been speculation and rumors, which does not belong on Wikipedia. You should be well aware of this, Jtervin. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - this article has now been deleted five times for the same good reason - fails WP:V. This includes two AfDs. Rarely has such an insignificant article had so much attention. BlueValour 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light frequency waves

Deletion reason given was WP:OR. However, a simple logical derivation, which is instantly understandable, is not original research. I consider the term useful for usage in articles, because it is possible to make it a much shorter article than Electromagnetic radiation. It is a bit trivial, but the article also does not bother. It is also thinkable to add illustrations etc. If possible, please restore the the article to my userspace. The term is by the way infrequently used on the internet. It clearly narrows to that part of Electromagnetic radiation, which is visible, or in the same frequency range as visible light (for instance the article IR remote control could use this term).
Furthermmore, the article data was not really wrong. Thus i ask to reconsider the article nomination.User:Yy-bo 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional arguments

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22light+frequency+waves%22

This prooves real usage of the term, where the usage of the term Light is just trivial and non-scientific.

light wave frequencies give even more search hits: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22light+wave+frequencies%22

It is important to search correctly for the complete term, not for the contained words.

In my opinion, solid science fundamentals are required, even if they may look trivial. They can help to produce clear spelling. Some articles are really hudge, though the concept of light frequency waves could be integrated into the main article Light, or Electromagnetic radiation. The nomination was not including search results. This is the appreciate community place for a detailed argumentation. User:Yy-bo 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As original deleter I went by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light frequency waves. I can't remember why I closed it early, although the fact that it was unreferenced, had the wrong title, and was entirely redundant to other much more authoritative articles probably played a part. Guy 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I do not see it being Bad science. For real, the term is used on a certain astronomy website, a serious manufacturer also uses exactly this term. Radiation, which is outbound the visible light, is, at times, not interesting. Also, the large spectrum illustration of the Light article is really hudge for a quick explanation. I had reasons to create the article. User:Yy-bo 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point somewhat. We have other, much better articles on the subject, including light and visible spectrum. Guy 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what you mean. My article also includes invisible Infrared and Ultraviolet, they are further discriminated by near infrared and far infrared. Most people know the spectrum of visible light from school. However, my article covers Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range of Light. It is used in that meaning of sense.

The deletion nomination was somehow ignoring these facts. Now, here a list: Light, visible spectrum, Light frequency waves, Radiation, Electromagnetic radiation. The deletion nomination was not arguing the scientific reality, but calling it not an article, OR, see also WP:OR and Bad science. User:Yy-bo 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article was a pretty poor thing. Feel free to try again, perhaps in your user space. Guy 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (Yep, I voted delete in the original.) The search results for "light frequency waves" mostly from wikipedia echos or fringe science sites, and one Canadian news collection; please point to examples, if you think I'm wrong. The presence of search results on "light wave frequencies" is irrelevant to the discussion. It's possible that an encyclopedic article could be written about "visible and near-visible electromagnetic radiation" but there's little evidence that the term "light frequency waves" is the correct term, and the deleted article was not encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original article is far too complicated. Who needs these formula each time? Sure they need to be there. Where is the understandable science? User:Yy-bo 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 *'''Endorse closure''' (Yep, I voted '''delete''' in the original.)  The search results for "light frequency waves" mostly from wikipedia echos or fringe science sites, and one Canadian news collection; please point to examples, if you think I'm wrong.  The presence of search results on "light wave frequencies" is irrelevant to the discussion.  It's possible that an encyclopedic article could be written about "visible and near-visible electromagnetic radiation" but there's little evidence that the term "light frequency waves" is the correct term, and the deleted article was not encyclopedic.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' The original article is far too complicated. Who needs these formula each time? Sure they need to be there. Where is the ''understandable science''? [[User:Yy-bo]] 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Bonza bottler day]]====
-This article was deleted on the basis that it was insufficiently notable, but Wikipedia articles on [[Hallmark holiday]]s and [[Humorous observances]], that are no more notable, have not been Afd'd. This issue was raised on Bonza Bottler Days' Afd Talk Page and I was under the impression that all similar "holidays" would be marked for deletion. They haven't been. So why then, didn't the Mediation Cabal apply the same standard to all similar holiday articles? I would appreciate it your looking into the matter. Wikipedia would benefit from the establishment and enforcement of consistent standards. Thank you![[User:Froid|Froid]] 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) <small>User's first edit</small>
-:The argument that other cruft exists therefore this cruft should exist, has never been persuasive.  153 unique Googles, many of which are Wikipedia project-space arguments over its content, are equally unpersuasive.  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonza bottler day]], however, contains several persuasive arguments for deletion, and is valid per process, so '''endorse deletion'''. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''', valid AFD, valid closure.  If other items of comparable quality exists, they can be nominated for deletion.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure'''. Valid AFD, nothing's changed, and nominator hasn't brought up anything different. Disclosure: I'm the original nominator for the AFD. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)