Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2017 June 12
2017 June 14 >

13 June 2017[edit]

  • Robert Kiyosaki – Huh? I don't get what's going on here. The AfD nomination was absurd. The close makes perfect sense; there's no way this was going to end up with any other result. And, asking that an admin re-close this because that somehow makes the result more binding is just pointless wiki-beaurocracy. Speedy closing this to avoid wasting more time on this. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robert Kiyosaki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was only open for two hours, before non-admin-closure as "Speedy Keep". Due to the fact that the article page history [1] involves multiple admins redirecting the page, it should've been allowed to either run its course for the full time for a WP:AfD, or be closed by another admin to firmly establish the outcome. Sagecandor (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Self-Endorse deletion decision: The two admims were only involved only removing POV fluff as Deletion is not cleanup. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 22:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't know why we are here. The AFD nominator (also DRV nominator) never advanced a reason to delete the article. The nomination statement started off with "Article subject is a person who appears to be notable" and ends the nomination with "Notable biography". This is an example of WP:Speedy keep#1. Four people put in their opinions and none of them thought the article should be deleted. AFD is not a venue for cleanup. ~ GB fan 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Aaron Bastani and Novara Media – Relist both. Without passing judgement on the sources themselves, there's good consensus that the sources presented here should be evaluated. So, I'm going to undelete both of these and list them at AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novara Media (2nd nomination)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aaron Bastani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Novara Media (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Aaron Bastani of Novara Media has appeared on Sky news multiple times during the run up the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Novara Media has recently hosted Jeremy Corbyn , Paul Mason, Yanis Varoufakis,John McDonnell, Lily Allen, Caroline Lucas, Alex Salmond and more on their various video articles.

They are one of the few media commentators that correctly predicted the results of the election. They are a vital voice for left wing politics which is otherwise ignored by much of mainstream media.

I genuinely believe this article's taken down for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron on Sky News [2][3] Jeremy Corbyn Interview [4] John McDonell Interview [5] Alex Salmond Interview [6] Paul Mason Interview [7] Caroline Lucas Interview [8] Patrickbettington (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aaron Bastani: As I noted on my talk page, being on the news multiple times on its own is not enough to have an article - people need to actually talk about someone. I also do not know this individual at all nor what political viewpoints they might have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to find sources that talk about these people, not just sources where they are doing something (interviewing someone). See WP:PRIMARY. Endorse deletion for now. Happy to shift if you find good, independent, third-party secondary sources. If you have doubts, come to my talk page. I'm very much an inclusionist (I like to see us cover as much as we can within our rules) so I'd be happy to see the articles exist if the sources exist (I'm also fairly liberal, so no bias against these folks seems likely, but I'm American and don't really know a huge amount about English politics.). Hobit (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see additional References below, from another 7 major UK news outlets, all discussing Bastani and Novari Media to different extents.

Aaron Bastani has over 33k Twitter followers [1] Novara Media has over 28k [2]

Guardian Article from last September listing both Novara Media and Aaron Bastani as part of New left movement [3]

Mention in Recent BBC article [4]

Mention in Daily Express [5]

Canary Article [6]

Spike Magazine [7]

Aljazeera [8]

The Sun [9]

The Mirror [10]

Patrickbettington (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does it change from being on the news a few times, to people talking about them? He is a political commentator running and representing a media outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/AaronBastani
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/novaramedia
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/18/momentum-activists-labour-jeremy-corbyn-feature
  4. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40251890
  5. ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/766664/labour-paul-mason-journalist-ukip-bike-stealing-toe-rags-hackney-rant
  6. ^ https://www.thecanary.co/2017/04/26/aaron-bastani-explains-feels-sorry-people-believing-lib-dems-right-now-video/
  7. ^ http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-problem-isnt-the-meejah/19890#.WUAO38aZNTI
  8. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2017/05/uk-media-obsession-jeremy-corbyn-170520090543309.html
  9. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1495705/hard-left-momentum-backing-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-campaign-has-secret-ties-to-anti-semitic-organisation/
  10. ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-joins-anti-fascist-9011681

openDemocracy interview with co-founder James Butler about Novara Media as a project [1]

Expression of support for a Novara Media fundraiser on the Verso Books blog [2]

Discussion on BBC 4's The Media Show about new media organisations, including Novara Media, and their effect on the June 2017 General Election [3]

Endorsement and description of Novara at the start of Jacobin's radio interview with Richard Seymour [4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooombs (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/james-butler-adam-ramsay/radical-media-novara10k-and-free-communism-interview-with-james-butler
  2. ^ http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2305-support-novara-media-and-win-the-latest-verso-books-for-one-whole-year
  3. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tbf1w
  4. ^ https://www.blubrry.com/jacobin/24458979/the-dig-richard-seymour-under-corbyn-labours-got-momentum
  • send back to AfD. The sources above aren't great, but the OpenDemocracy interview is pretty good coverage (I've never agreed that interviews were somehow not useful). The other sources largely don't provide much discussion about the topics. I suspect we'll end up with one article with the other merged in. But yeah, I think the discussions didn't really touch on the sources (likely because they were unaware of them), so it's worth trying again. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD per Hobit since the AfDs did not discuss these sources. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most of the sources that have been listed here are either utterly insubstantial or taboid horseshit, I think that some of the sources relating to Novara Media are enough to establish notability, and that the organisation has clearly become more high-profile and thus more widely-discussed since the 2015 AfD, and my !vote is to allow recreation or failing that relist Novara Media. On the other hand, none of the sources listed here come remotely close to establishing the notability of Bastani himself. If the Novara article is recreated then his name ought to redirect there, but I would strongly oppose recreating that article, and would endorse, as the nominator at AfD, the closer's decision with regard to Aaron Bastani. I would also like to recommend that User:Patrickbettington takes the time to familiarise himself with Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and especially to remember to assume good faith, i.e. to refrain from the very tiring insistence that Wikipedia editors are motivated by political grudges rather than an interest in building and maintaining an encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arms &amp - Apologies. The timing of Aaron Bastani page coming down was unfortunate, 3 days after an election in which he was extremely vocal, I was aware of the principles, but thought they may have been circumnavigated. I've been sufficiently convinced by a number of users that it was not political. What would be the next step in order to "relist" Novara Media? Patience?Patrickbettington (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are further references required, or is the a consensus on Notability and move to relist ? Patrickbettington (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (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.
2032 Summer Olympics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the very near future, these will be the first Summer Olympics to have no official host city. By now, there should be at least SOME information so that the 2032 Summer Olympics will actually have an article. For anyone who thinks this article should stay deleted, please reveal exactly what you support waiting until before re-creating the article. Georgia guy (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion the discussion was clearly calling for deletion. I personally think there are probably enough sources and information to justify an article, but that's not where the discussion went and the reasons for deletion were, well, reasonable. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'm an idiot and missed that this AfD is two years old. My own searching made me think this was a reasonable topic for an article, but not clearly enough to override that discussion. So yeah, I'll strike that. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt I don't think the OP here actually wanted a review of the closure of a two year old deletion discussion. However the major argument for deletion was WP:TOOSOON and people noted that the 2028 games hasn't been awarded to a city yet. That games is due to be awarded in September of this year, at which point this will be the next games that hasn't been awarded yet and anybody looking to host the Summer Olympics will be bidding for this one. This change in circumstances has made the 2015 deletion discussion less relevant. Hut 8.5 18:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per Hut 8.5. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2017 (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.
ITC Infotech (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was submitted after thoroughly going through and following all the guidelines specified by Wikipedia. I strongly believe that Wikipedia encourages people to make valuable and informative contributions and that is exactly the reason why I attempted to create this article of a company which has been in operation for more than 16 years. Kindly have a review and guide me on the steps I should follow in this regard. Imorningstar85 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take it you mean Draft:ITC Infotech (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore), which you worked on and which was deleted in the last week, rather than the mainspace article that was deleted a year and a half ago? No, we don't encourage people to make pages like that. Wikipedia is not your free billboard. Endorse. —Cryptic 11:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More info on my talk page. Can't see the screen well enough to format the links. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as obvious spam. WP:SPA nom is probably worth blocking. Also, see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altimetrik. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Related how? I haven't had any coffee yet, but the only connection I see is that they're both IT consultancies in India. Those are... not exactly uncommon. —Cryptic 12:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to even begin to meet our criteria. Not that I'd object to an article about the company written in a neutral fashion, but this isn't it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:24, 15 June 2017 (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.
Ucmate app (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:N Was discussed and decided to delete back on 3rd June, but wasn't actioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Footballs Conscience (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure it was: it was deleted immediately after the discussion was closed, then deleted again after it was recreated two days later. What action are you asking for? —Cryptic 05:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, looks like a fairly straightforward case of the article being recreated after being deleted at AFD, and then (quite properly) deleted via G4. The article texts were identical, right down to grammatical errors. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sorry new to this, hadn't realised page had already been deleted twice. Was asking for it to be deleted again because I had seen the discussion about deleting it, see that it has now been done. Thanks NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 06:46, 13 June 2017 (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/2017_June_13&oldid=1039507949"