Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 13

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2013 January 12
2013 January 14 >

13 January 2013

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.


Josh Wood Productions does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. It is not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It is not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. -Luisa Pisani (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete Article does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. Article equal to the following articles Silver Pictures, Samuel Goldwyn Films, Imagine Entertainment, Millennium Entertainment, Amblin Entertainment, Crystal Sky Pictures, Skydance Productions, ect... articles mentioned hereby do not even have references, although some of the articles created in October 2010, remains without any warning as it is clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines (better job to do). Josh Wood Productions was not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It was not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. --AllisonID (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • send to AFD It's possible the speedy rationale is inaccurate but given the benefit of that doubt my examination of the Google cache leads me to bleieve that it's highly unlikely this would survive a deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Punkcast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Up to the last minute there were 3 delete !votes and the nomination, total 4. There was only one keep !vote and it was from the creator and only editor of the article. This user also tried to dismiss the AFD by saying I had a grudge against him for some reason which is not true, and were told they should AGF. At the very last minute someone !voted keep and just said the opposite of the nomination text and also said that none of the other positions in the delete !votes were strong. This keep !vote did not specifically reference any wikipedia policy but all of the 'hdelete !votes did. Based on this it was closed with no consensus. Looking at other AFDs it looks like standard procedure in case like this is to keep it open to gain consensus. I think consensus was reached to delete but even if it wasn't it should not have been closed before no one could respond to the !keep vote. I already asked the closing admin who did what they thought is right but did not see all aspects to me. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - relisting is not a substitute for no consensus and such a close is reasonable in cases where there is genuinely no consensus. It doesn't matter whether someone gives their opinion 5 minutes after an AFD opens or 5 minutes before it closes, AFD closes are not a head-count and the closing admin gave a comprehensive explaination for the close (as is appropriate for a no consensus close). Stalwart111 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded side discussion
  • Expanded original comment - okay, a few things first. I participated in your only other real contribution to WP to date - the AFD of an article related to this one. To begin with, you really need to have a read of WP:OUTING which you have clearly breached in some of your messages to other editors about a particular editor. Regardless of COI (which is based on your personal, unverified "google" research and opinion), you cannot publish the name or personal details of an editor without their permission. You have now done so several times. This alone is enough to justify blocking you. You need to stop. COI (especially speculative COI) does not trump harassment policy, in fact it's the other way around. As for the AFD, relisting is not a substitute for no consensus and such a close is reasonable in cases where there is genuinely no consensus. It doesn't matter whether someone gives their opinion 5 minutes after an AFD opens or 5 minutes before it closes, AFD closes are not a head-count and the closing admin gave a comprehensive explaination for the close (as is appropriate for a no consensus close). You need to find something else to spend your time on. Stalwart111 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Most of what you said is attacking me and has nothing to do with the deletion and should be in another place not here. If I was breaking policy I apologize, you should have told me sooner. The deletion is a discussion and if a comment is put in 5 minutes before it closes then it cannot be discussed. MarioNovi (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nominations, comments to others and this DRV all speak to your motivations and intentions, especially when they constitute almost the whole of your contribution to WP to date. Having seen your messages to a handful of other editors (the ones who supported you at AFD, so you should probably read WP:CANVASS also), I have since left a more formal warning on your talk page. I'm happy to assume good faith to a point, but harassment is beyond that point. The harassment continued here so I raised it here. Beyond the motivations for the DRV itself, I will leave it to other editors to decide if the close was reasonable or not. Stalwart111 07:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment update Hi. I read WP:OUTING which says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Also I have said I edited as an anonymous editor before. Please tell me if I'm wrong in anything, thank youMarioNovi (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • more comment I see you found this because Wwwhatsup has been complaining about me to you on your talk page here [1] and thinks I am involed with dispute at Richard Manitoba. I don't care about that but maybe you should tell him to read WP:CANVASS too regarding that dispute if you look at his contributions. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I regularly contribute to DRV so the fact that the other editor posted a link to this discussion to my talk page is fairly inconsequential. Your notice was specifically designed to draw supportive editors here and started with a thanks and a reminder that they had supported you during the AFD. But yes, the editor was also concerned about a similarly "sudden" and "SPA-style" interest in another article he had edited which had similar attributes to your unusual out-of-the-blue AFDs. That had its own issues and I helped there. But none of that has anything to do with your breaches (multiple now) of WP:OUTING and posting your tenuous "research" above just makes things worse. Stalwart111 08:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I striked the parts where I draw conclusions. Stalwart if you agree we can both strike out everything about the identity and everything else we both post that isnt directly about the DRV. MarioNovi (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_January_13&oldid=1082337456"