Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 28#Buddhism and the body
=[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 28|28 March 2009]]=
class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
|
---|
style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Lori Haigh|xfd_page=|article=}} If you google Lori Haigh, pages and pages come up about her. She is currently the subject of a HarperCollins book. She is known for not just one single issue as stated in the deletion request. We feel the deletion requests were made and concurred with by malicious individuals in her personal life and we request the page be reinstated. She was the only person in history to be sued by a Catholic priest. Someone has been deleting the facts, changing the facts and then making it appear unworthy for a wiki page. Her art gallery was famous the world over, and the gallery website receives over 10,000 hits a month to it. Please reinstate the Lori Haigh page. 67.164.39.237 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
|
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
|
---|
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Buddhism and the body|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body|article=}} This page was used for navigation between the pages specified on the removed. Removal does not coincide with one rule. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=db-DAB search request db-DAB]--Andrey! 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::To me a navigating template to make in the beginning of article or standard methods we will manage?--Andrey! 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
|
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
|
---|
style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Buddhism and the body|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body|article=}} Requesting a 'history-only' undeletion. The original article was poorly focused and suffered from extensive essay-type OR. I initially !voted for its deletion. Several participants in AfD cited my and another editor's (User:Mitsube) comments in their move to delete. Late in the process, I came to feel that some of the referenced material in the article could be preserved in a properly focused and sourced article on the topic (which is discussed in a number major publications on Buddhism). I created a draft version of a new article in my userspace which deleted the OR, and added a new introduction and subject headings to refocus the article, sourced (in my comments though not explicitly in the article, as it was intended as a working draft) from the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. I linked to the new article in the AfD, and several editors commented that it appeared to be an appropriate starting point for an acceptable Wikipedia article on the topic. My hope was that after a little back and forth on AfD, we could post the new version of the article and close the discussion. However, the AfD was close by an admin (User:MBisanz), I think on the basis of the consensus before the new version of the article was offered, after just a couple on the article by the participants in the AfD. I went ahead and moved the new version of the article into the old space, forgetting about the need to keep the history for the old contributions. User:Aleta caught this and started Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material to discuss the situation. People seemed to feel that DR was the best solution; resurrect the old history for the article, and the current version will be the next edit if DR ops to restore. Clay Collier (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not sure the result was that clear. By my count, it was 11-6 for deletion counting all merges as deletes before the introduction of the new version of the article. Mitsube and I changed our view after the new version was posted; another user stated that their vote was based on the arguments that that Mitsube and I had made for deletion. Taking out just Mitsube and I makes it at most 9-8 for deletion. Given that people involved in the discussion who were in favor of deletion have said that they were fine with the new version, that seems like no consensus to me. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC) :::Collier has the point here. Why Andyjsmith continues in his relentless crusade against this and a handful of other articles even in the face of consensual opinion and fact itself is beyond me.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Comment on the edits and not the editor, please. Aleta Sing 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
|
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
|
---|
style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 15#Current satellites|article=}} I believe that not only was this category moved without any clear consensus but it is now adding clearly false information to dozens (or perhaps hundreds of articles). Satellites which are famously known to be sunk to the bottom of the sea or impacted into land are now categorized as "orbiting Earth". Including Sputnik 1 itself! I have no idea why the editors at Categories for Deletion are apparently allergic to using the term "former" as to me indicating the difference between something that is currently or is not currrently is a simple fact that is easily encyclopedic. But I also believe that there was no consensus for this move based on the discussion comments, several of which raised concerns about it. Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun was also moved by the same editor also without consensus (and possibly also introducing the same basic error of fact into some articles, I haven't checked.) In that case the category was moved to one that no discussion participant even mentioned. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::That one doesn't but as soon as you include the word "orbiting" into a sentence about satellites without any qualifiers currency is implied. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::We also have Wikipedia former featured articles and categories like former monarchies (removing it there, also implies currency of the fact when it actually isn't. Does anyone know where the supposed rule that was being used is documented? - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) :::See User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former. Call it "custom", "tradition", "precedent", "long-standing consensus", or what you will. I think on balance it's fair to say that it's been most often applied to categories for people or objects and not to organizations or institutions, like monarchies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Just to clarify- what's the rationale for the avoidance of the 'former' modified in this case, or in general? I can see that we wouldn't want categories for something that might change on a regular basis, but 'Satellites Formerly Orbiting the Earth' seems pretty definitive. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::I do think the right thing to do, IAR perhaps, is to relist. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:* By the way, the claim that no one interested in working on articles will be aware of the CFD process is not only patently false and patently ridiculous, it is patently insulting to editors who participate heavily in CFD. As one who is involved in the AFD process, CFD process and manages to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Otto4711 bang out the occasional article], my experience has been that, with a couple of extreme inclusionist exceptions, the editors who participate heavily in CFD have a far better grasp and understanding of both the process and the relevant policies and guidelines than do the editors who pop in and out of AFDs when their pet articles are up for discussion. Perhaps you might want to "refactor" your comment? Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
|
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |