John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) →[[:Father Michael Goetz Secondary School]]: regarding "all [high] schools are inherently notable" |
Butseriouslyfolks (talk | contribs) →[[:Father Michael Goetz Secondary School]]: endorse deletion |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*'''Overturn and Undelete''' By no means was this a featured article candidate, but it did make claims of notability. In ignoring !votes that made a claim of keep based on inherent notability, an equal and opposite number of !votes that made the opposite and false that no school is notable were counted, in addition to other !votes that ignored the content of the article or the changes that had been made to it after the AfD was created. There was no consensus to delete the article. . As modified, the article made credible claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. In ignoring some !votes and counting others, this closure was improperly turned into a mere vote-counting exercise that failed to consider the content of the article in any fashion. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and Undelete''' By no means was this a featured article candidate, but it did make claims of notability. In ignoring !votes that made a claim of keep based on inherent notability, an equal and opposite number of !votes that made the opposite and false that no school is notable were counted, in addition to other !votes that ignored the content of the article or the changes that had been made to it after the AfD was created. There was no consensus to delete the article. . As modified, the article made credible claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. In ignoring some !votes and counting others, this closure was improperly turned into a mere vote-counting exercise that failed to consider the content of the article in any fashion. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. I see nothing out of process here. In fact, I don't see anything in the keep votes based on policy. I specifically don't see any that say "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", which is required for any article. The position held by some that "all high schools are notable" does not have consensus at Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that high school articles are often deleted at AfD. Without a further basis in policy, the inherent notability position should be given no more weight than [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> [[User:Bsf|<font color="White">But</font>]]|[[User talk:Bsf|<font color="White">seriously</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Butseriouslyfolks|<font color="White">folks</font>]] </span>''' 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:MGTOW]]==== |
====[[:MGTOW]]==== |
Revision as of 01:25, 6 July 2007
5 July 2007
Father Michael Goetz Secondary School
- Father Michael Goetz Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
The debate doesnt appear to be a consensus at the time of close. The closing rationale is that the article has no encyclopedic content however the article already had one sourced element of notability added during the Afd (google's cache doesnt include this addition) and I had provided evidence that there were more sources which could be used. John Vandenberg 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- overturn deletion the closer doesn't get a super-vote... there was no consensus and the article had "encyclopedic content" anyway. --W.marsh 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete. There were only six comments arguing for deletion (assuming the nom as a !vote to delete) vs. 7 editors wanting to keep the article. Clearly there was no consensus to delete the article. The closing is a clear error. -- DS1953 talk 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I was expecting this one to be brought here. I closed this AfD by disregarding the "all schools are inherently notable" argument and attending to the requests of users whom I saw as standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia. I neither endorse my deletion nor call for its overturn.--Húsönd 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Afd participants whose arguments were along the lines of "all [high] schools are inherently notable" are voicing their opinion of what should be in this encyclopedia (the first pillar) that we are building, and it is an opinion that is held by many people. Disregarding those opinions is enforcing your own definition of what is encyclopedic. John Vandenberg 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and Undelete By no means was this a featured article candidate, but it did make claims of notability. In ignoring !votes that made a claim of keep based on inherent notability, an equal and opposite number of !votes that made the opposite and false that no school is notable were counted, in addition to other !votes that ignored the content of the article or the changes that had been made to it after the AfD was created. There was no consensus to delete the article. . As modified, the article made credible claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. In ignoring some !votes and counting others, this closure was improperly turned into a mere vote-counting exercise that failed to consider the content of the article in any fashion. Alansohn 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. I see nothing out of process here. In fact, I don't see anything in the keep votes based on policy. I specifically don't see any that say "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", which is required for any article. The position held by some that "all high schools are notable" does not have consensus at Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that high school articles are often deleted at AfD. Without a further basis in policy, the inherent notability position should be given no more weight than WP:ILIKEIT. -- But|seriously|folks 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
MGTOW
This page has been deleted for 2 years now, its an active movement, its been deleted for false reasons every time. I just created the page, put a hangon notice, and it was deleted AGAIN.
Check out the last argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW
All the discussion was removed also, to cover up why it was removed. This is censorship to stop mens rights, there is no other reason to contest it other than you disagree with it. - IronWolve 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy endorse deletion, this is not AfD redux, and accusations of bad faith do not help your cause. Nor do the threats on the AfD of shutting down Wikipedia with a vandalbot if we don't give in to your demands. Corvus cornix 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I never mentioned a vandalbot or threaten wikipedia. (So why did you state that?)
- That archived discussion is over 1 year ago by the last group of guys trying to add MGTOW. Now to 2007, I notice MGTOW doesn't exist and try to add it, answer all the copyrights and notable questions, and put a holdon, and it was deleted within 24 hours! This isnt a sub article, even though its mentioned in the mens rights section, its a philosophy for an active movement, thats been defined for over 2 years, used on all major mens rights forums and blogs. Now that a book was written on it, that should make it notable enough. - IronWolve 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I meant "you" as in advocates for your cause, who said, I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them?, and then went on to make further threats. Do you have reliable sources which prove the notability of the movement which you claim exists? Corvus cornix 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, very hostile attacks. It was equested to make the article notable if I could provide 1 book, book ISBN 0976261316, The Rantings of a Single Male. Which describe the "MGTOW Men Going There Own Way" movement and philosophy. (I had to ask on the mens forums about this book, since only Amazon classifies it as MGTOW) and that took me a day, thats why the speedy deletion was contested, I had to ask EXPERTS. - IronWolve 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize if you think that my comments were hostile, but I feel hostility towards those who think that they have some sort of Received Judgement For God that Wikipedia must be shut down if it doesn't accede to their view as to the Rightness of their cause. Now, Google shows 122 hits for "men going their own way". Hardly an avalanche. Nothing at Google Books, nothing at Google News. What does the book you mention have to say about MGTOW? Is it a casual mention, a chapter, an entire book? One is also not sufficient, as the criterion is for "multiple" independent sources. Corvus cornix 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I love wikpedia, thats why I use it all the time, and I'm new to mens rights movements. During my own research, the mens rights movement is lacking in books and real articles. I have searched for national mens rights groups, and only found 1. I have found the most popular bloggers and forums, and through the investigation I learned about the MGTOW philosophy and noticed the mens groups using it and its logos. I didn't know what exactly what the MGTOW was, and found the mens activist wiki, which describes it. Now, if we take in account the scope of the size of mens rights (not fathers rights), MGTOW is the major philosophy for the mens movement. I wish I could point to some third party outside mens rights, but there doesnt seem to be any. So, if MGTOW is the major philosphy used by mens groups, and all the mens groups are online, I can only point to that. AS for the book, I do not have a copy and did take another persons words on it. But I do think that grant the smallness of the mens movement, the only philsophy would be the major philosphy, and it is describe in the wikipedia's own article on mens rights. ARGH, I wish there was an major mens rights group I could qoute, but there isn't a (recognized) national mens rights group.... -22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's a long, well-sourced article at Men's rights. Corvus cornix
- Men's rights mentions MGTOW, yet MGTOW doesn't exist. /sigh - IronWolve 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's a long, well-sourced article at Men's rights. Corvus cornix
- Whoa, very hostile attacks. It was equested to make the article notable if I could provide 1 book, book ISBN 0976261316, The Rantings of a Single Male. Which describe the "MGTOW Men Going There Own Way" movement and philosophy. (I had to ask on the mens forums about this book, since only Amazon classifies it as MGTOW) and that took me a day, thats why the speedy deletion was contested, I had to ask EXPERTS. - IronWolve 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I meant "you" as in advocates for your cause, who said, I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them?, and then went on to make further threats. Do you have reliable sources which prove the notability of the movement which you claim exists? Corvus cornix 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ken_Kaniff (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tragic loss, article should have been merged, not deleted Reynolds45 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |