(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::A simple "could you undelete" would have also worked. In any case, done. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
::A simple "could you undelete" would have also worked. In any case, done. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' No notability established in article or references. -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] [[User_talk:Nv8200p|talk]] 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' No notability established in article or references. -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] [[User_talk:Nv8200p|talk]] 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Undelete, relist. "During the worst weeks of the outbreak last spring, average occupancy rates at hotels, including world-famous prestige properties like the Peninsula and the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, dropped to the point where on some nights, some prominent hotels were said to be empty of guests". This is not evidence of notability, because we are supposed to assume travel writers for the New York Times are just writing for the perks. Right. Bullshit like this should be judged by the community as a whole not a single editor with an agenda. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Image:Alan johnston button.png]]==== |
====[[:Image:Alan johnston button.png]]==== |
Revision as of 15:29, 4 August 2007
4 August 2007
Image:Jp01.jpg
- Image:Jp01.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Jp01.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
As discussed heavily on the image talk page. The image, nominated for deletion out of vindictiveness, was deleted in an absence of consensus. It seems clear from the discussion that the image is allowable if it serves a function within the article other than just showing what the person looks like. The reasons why it serves another function are laid out extensively on the talk page and the deleting admin just blew all of that off. In attempting to explain the deletion, admin stated that if it weren't deleted no one would feel motivated to go out and find another image. It strikes me that it is not the role of an administrator to selectively "motivate" editors in this fashion. The admin failed to assume good faith on my part as the uploader of the image, accusing me of trying to get around the image policy. It was explained exhaustively that the image was not simply about his appearance on a magazine cover but was instead about the very significant event of the subject's coming out as gay. Closing admin does not appear to have any understanding of the significance of this and faultily bought into the claim that the image was only illustrating his appearance. Admin was wrong on every count and the image should be restored. Otto4711 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computers
- Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computers (edit | [[Talk:Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computers|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I am requesting deletion review on this Category and all others which were deleted from the Category:Wikipedians by Personal Computer on the grounds that I believe the deletion "vote" was misinterpreted by the closer. It was 6 delete, 5 keep and the closer went for a full delete when I believe it should have been interpreted as no consensus, since the "vote" was so close. Plus, the categories were not originally "former" categories, but were listed for current and previous owners of the machines listed. Thor Malmjursson 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Grand Hyatt Hong Kong
- Grand Hyatt Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Actually, I believe the deletion was entirely appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong concluded to a lack of notability of the hotel (closed by Coredesat (talk · contribs)). The sole editor favoring keeping the article was Kappa (talk · contribs). He recreated 30 minutes following deletion and three times in the past 24 hours although I asked him to come here first and I think it's best if I do it for him. All three recreations were deleted, once by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) and twice by myself. I should note that Android79 (talk · contribs) declined the last speedy on grounds that the article was significantly different than the deleted versions. I believe that this is only superficially true: Kappa did add a few references but they are from travel guides or travel sections of newspapers and magazines. I should note once again that newspaper reviews of hotels do not constitute reliable sources in our sense as they are generally written from a voluntarily subjective point of view and more often than not are glowing reviews produced after the writer is invited to the hotel. In Kappa's new version, notability is argued for through notable guests although that argument was contested during the AfD and thus does not address the concerns raised in the AfD. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse all deletions, appropriate G4s since they did not address any concerns raised in the AFD (hotel reviews from travel guides are not reliable sources, and guests who are notable do not confer their notability to wherever they happen to be staying). --Coredesat 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK you bastards won't even let me see the article and you think this is a fair trial. Kappa 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- A simple "could you undelete" would have also worked. In any case, done. Pascal.Tesson 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse No notability established in article or references. -Nv8200p talk 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete, relist. "During the worst weeks of the outbreak last spring, average occupancy rates at hotels, including world-famous prestige properties like the Peninsula and the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, dropped to the point where on some nights, some prominent hotels were said to be empty of guests". This is not evidence of notability, because we are supposed to assume travel writers for the New York Times are just writing for the perks. Right. Bullshit like this should be judged by the community as a whole not a single editor with an agenda. Kappa 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Alan johnston button.png
- Image:Alan johnston button.png (edit | [[Talk:Image:Alan johnston button.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image was speedy deleted as invalid fair use rationale using Twinkle. Associated talk page similarly deleted using Twinkle. However, there was discussion on the now-deleted talk page and a general agreement between those who discussed that the fair use rationale was valid as the tagger had thought the usage of the image was for something different. Fair-use rationale was not to identify Johnston, which is what it was tagged invalid rationale for. The fair-use rationale, and actual usage of the image, was to show the BBC's efforts to keep Johnston's case in the spotlight.
I did bring this up to the deleting admin, who replied rather uncivilly to it. The talk page which contained this discussion was also inappropriately deleted under CSD G8 but G8 does not apply if the talk page "contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere", as is the case here. The talk page should be undeleted so people can see the discussion for themselves, and then decide on the image ([1]).
Undelete both. – Chacor 04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete permanently - Johnston is free, everything has been sorted with regards to his release, no need for it to be here. Thor Malmjursson 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand - this isn't a deletion vote for the article. The button was used in the article to show how the BBC kept his case in the media spotlight. Thus it is encyclopedic and was used properly. The question here is about the deletion, whether or not it was proper. I urge the closing admin to ignore this blatant "vote" (quoted from the user himself in the edit summary) that misses the point. – Chacor 12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies, Chacor - I did miss the point. I will say that I call it a vote cause I don't know what else to call it however, since it looks like a vote, behaves like a vote and acts like a vote (even if it isn't one!). For what its worth however -
Undelete both - people need to be able to see the deleted discussion before they can make an informed decision. However, I do believe, having read SchuminWeb's comments, they were not uncivil; blunt, yes. Out of order, no. Thor Malmjursson 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)