|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Hello @ Explicit,
When I first saw the deletion discussion for [ Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Israel], there was a note from the initiator of the deletion request that, upon being advised it was better, they wanted to withdraw the deletion request to consolidate it with the deletion request for dozens of other sports broadcasting pages at [ Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. And so, I put my keep comment in the Serbia discussion, and I limited the comment to generic points relevant to the broader category of sports broadcasting contracts. Some users agreed with it, and at least one did not. In any case, after following the broader deletion discussion, which resulted in a procedural keep, I came back to the Israel sports broadcasting page, only to learn that it had been deleted the same day as the broader procedural keep. The deletion request had apparently kept going, but I do not feel that for a full seven days (the typical minimum for deletion discussions) that users reading it would have understood that it was still a separate, active deletion discussion. It was reasonable for me to think I should go elsewhere with my comments, and also not make comments specific to the Israel page. I was led to the wrong discussion, and others may have been as well. Would you please consider undoing the deletion, at least to allow a few more days of conversation and/or edits to the article to improve it?
The same issue exists with the deletions of the [ Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Australia] and [ Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Japan], but I leave it to you to decide whether to treat all the same. In any case, having overlapping deletion discussions (one to a broad category of changes, and others for specific pages) is very confusing and is not a process designed to achieve a fair outcome.
You may have seen my conversation on this point in connection with the deletion decision (a procedural keep) on [ Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. In any case, I am happy to explain any points in further detail if that would be of help to you.
Thank you for your consideration. Coining ( talk) 03:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Coining: Hi, I'll try my best to address each of your points. First, "procedural keep" is not the same as "keep". Participants in the bundled nomination were !voting to avoid a potential
train wreck disaster as there were too many pages that, if nominated separately from the beginning, would have all led to different conclusions. Only the
Israel AFD mentioned the bundled nomination, but not
Australia's or
Japan's. Only one user !voted "delete" across these three debates and the bundled nomination (
BrigadierG), while another argued for deletion in the two of the three solo nominations (
MaskedSinger). Two users !voted "procedural keep" in the bundled nominated first, then !voted "delete" in Israel's (
GiantSnowman and
Anwegmann). The remaining contributor (
LibStar) took part in one solo nominations and did not participate in the bundled discussion. It does not seem like the notice on the Israel AFD made much of a difference, and the other two solo noms were not affected at all since there was no notice. I'm also in agreement with
Hey man im josh in regards to the three users who !voted to outright "keep" all the articles. None of them addressed
WP:NOTGUIDE, which is policy.
✗
plicit 06:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Explicit why did you delete the page sports broadcasting contracts in australia there was nothing wrong with it, I want it back because I was using it to check the various sporting comps and their broadcasters associated with it. I have already contacted wikipedia to complain about the deletion so please restore it. :) SocceroosMatildasfan4ever ( talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @ Explicit for the reply. Here are my responses:
- - First, the bundled nominations and associated AFD withdrawal by nominator requests were mentioned in the [ Australia] and [ Japan] AFDs, it's just that those mentions were deleted from the discussions a couple of days after they were posted. Please see the edit histories linked to above for evidence of that.
- - Combined with the Articles for Deletion guideline that "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively," it was reasonable for users like me, especially those who viewed the entries when the AFD withdrawal requests were posted to think that the deletion discussion was being redirected to the broader discussion at [ Serbia].
- - The context of the broader discussion matters to the individual page discussions. If dozens of other similar country-based broadcasting contract pages are viewed by many Wikipedians as notable, one has to wonder what makes these particular pages not worthy of Wikipedia. The fact that some users thought other pages were appropriate, but only not Israel's, actually risks this deletion decision becoming another entry in the recent research report on [ The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia].
- - This is a perfect opportunity to utilize the procedures at Wikipedia:RELIST
- - If you relist the Australia AFD discussion, you'll be able to direct @ SocceroosMatildasfan4ever to make a case for that page there.
-
Coining (
talk) 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- == Deletion review for Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel ==
Coining has asked for a deletion review of Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coining ( talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, thank you for work. You CSDed Bakti (apparently created by a banned user). I seem to remember to have edited the page (substantially? sourced it? I honestly can't rembember). Would you mind sending me the text so that I can rework it? (Draft/User space, as you wish) It was in my watchlist, so I suppose that at one point I found it notable. Thank you very much. Yours, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Mushy Yank: Hi, a copy of the article before its deletion can be found
here.
✗
plicit 23:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. That's very kind. Best, -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just a quick question: I just saw that Bakti is now back in main space, but with a history truncated to where Mushy Yank recovered it. Shouldn't the old history be restored too to satisfy the attribution requirements? Felix QW ( talk) 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. That's very kind. Best, -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Explicit, you deleted this fair-use image per F5 as it wasn't being used in the Al Franken article. An IP user had deleted the image in what was apparently vandalism. I reverted the vandalism, but the link is now red and doesn't lead to anything. Could you restore/undelete the image? Thanks. Bremps ... 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at
File:Federation Haitienne de Football.png? You closed the FFD about it
here, but it's been added (yet again) to the indvidual team article. This has happened in the past as well, and I've removed the image when it has (leaving an edit summary explaining why). Maybe a
WP:HIDDEN note should be added to the infobox's |image= parameter or an
WP:EDITNOTICE to the top of the page? --
Marchjuly (
talk) 06:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Marchjuly: Hi, I have removed the logo once again. I took look at the page history and noticed that two sockpuppets of BouwMaster had restored the logo in the past. Sure enough, a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BouwMaster was listed some hours ago, so this may be resolved soon. ✗ plicit 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Concrete TV
A while back, you deleted the article for Concrete TV over concerns about its notability. However, the show's official site includes quotations about the show from High Times, Rolling Stone, New York Magazine, BlackBook, Boing Boing, and Time Out New York: [1]. As far as public-access television goes, this show is about as notable as it gets. Is there any chance that we could give this article a second chance?-- LadybugStardust ( talk) 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
LadybugStardust:
Done – as a contested
proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request.
✗
plicit 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. My new additions to the page will hopefully be enough to fend off the notability police.-- LadybugStardust ( talk) 21:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't need to be notified of such deletions - they are a special case. I will point out that it's worth checking how these categories have become empty. It seems perfectly possible to "merge" album and song articles into artist articles, and then claim that since the artist has no notable albums their article should be deleted. Of course this could be perfectly true, however if there has been no significant effort to find sources for the album, then they may just get deleted without anyone ever doing a
WP:BEFORE. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC).
I saw you deleted the image for not having a source, but the source was listed as "UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections", which should be adequate, as we don't require an URL for sources (many images from books, etc, don't have URLs if the editor scanned it, for instance.) I think tagging and deleting was a mistake, but didn't want to just undelete it without discussing first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Dennis Brown: Hi, after taking another look and seeing that the image caption reads, "first publicly released picture of Genie", I have decided to restore the image. I wasn't sure if
WP:NFCC#4 was satisfied when I originally looked at it, but it does appear to meet the "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" condition of policy.
✗
plicit 23:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can you please explain this rationale to me and why it doesn't apply to all non-free content? I'm perplexed. Thanks J04n( talk page) 00:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ J04n: Hi, the nominator was referring to the final paragraph of WP:FREER. Unlike The Capitol Albums, Volume 2, for example, the image is of the album cover only. There is one element of copyright to consider. One the other hand, File:The Beatles Stereo Box Set Image.png was a photo of the contents of the box set. Here, there are two elements of copyright: the design of the box set's contents and that of the person who took the photo. While the box set materials can not be freely licensed, a photograph of them can be taken and freely licensed.
- Hopefully, this explanations makes some sort of sense. If not, you can consider File:Bracero Monument, Los Angeles.jpg. The statue is copyrighted, but a photo of the statue is freely licensed, hence the dual licensing. This file satisfies FREER to that extent. ✗ plicit 06:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Explicit, im asking ur permission to recreated Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin. I already read the deletion page and it says the page was deleted because it failed WP:GNG but recently i found more sources about him on internet archive which I think can solve the previous problem. I promise I will do the rework as best as possible, thank you very much. N. Alicia J ( talk) 10:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello again Explicit, i've recreated Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin using an additional sources from Google Books, Internet Archive, and some articles that mention about him on web search. Maybe u can check if it already pass WP:GNG. Thank you very much. N. Alicia J ( talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The file has been restored to the page from which it as removed. Could you please undelete it and the talk page? -- evrik ( talk) 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I know I put the wrong deletion tag, but nonetheless could you please delete the redirect Abdur Rahim (politician). The person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name 'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. Thank you and best regards, Crampcomes ( talk) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Crampcomes: Hi, this redirect simply does not meet any speedy deletion criterion. You are free to nominate it for discussion at WP:RFD. ✗ plicit 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I got permission from English Teacher and the photographer to use the image that was at:
This is related to The band English Teacher, photo for their "This Could Be Texas" debut album tour, April 2024.png
So how I can put up a photo that's copyrighted when it's with everybody's permission? Thanks! Vajzë Blu ( talk) 00:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Vajzë Blu: Hi, please follow the directions given at
C:COM:ET.
✗
plicit 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks! Vajzë Blu ( talk) 01:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The photo is copyrighted by the photographer so I can't upload it by those directions. Even though that's the image the band most wants used. But I uploaded another image of the band that's under a different license.
Vajzë Blu (
talk) 04:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Vajzë Blu: The entity who owns the copyright of the image, which is usually the photographer, is the only person who can release their work under a free license. Even if the band itself wants a specific photo used and provide it, the original photographer's consent is required. Otherwise, the rights of their work is being infringed. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of the license claim for File:English Teacher-The Best Tears of Your Life.png. ✗ plicit 05:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- ( talk page watcher) Hi Vajzë Blu. I've posted some more about this on your user talk page (as well as about some other things). Please take a look at it for reference. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I’m curious why Valeriy Angelopol’s page was deleted. Can you share any information as to why that happened? 2601:441:4200:FC00:3970:E445:6CD0:6C73 ( talk) 21:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)