Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Votes needing immediate attention archive

< Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Here is where old AfDs are archived after closing.

Votes needing immediate attention

edit
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians - a few editors are bent on deleting this article for what to me seem to be purely emotional reasons. I realise that that the whole issue of "messianic Judaism" is an emotional topic for Jews and Christians alike, but just because a topic generates a fire-storm is not a good enough reason to delete it, in my opinion. I admit to having a vested interest in the article (I compiled the nucleus of it), so if somebody more neutral than I could have a look, I will respect your judgement. David Cannon 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such list are not encyclopedic. They all could be deleted. This has nathing to do eith inclusionism or exclusionism! We write on an Encyclopedia. There we should create articles about all possible things without frontiers. But such lists are not articles. Marcus Cyron 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has since been deleted. The title of this list seems far too comprehensive to hope to ever be complete unless it is specifically limited to, say, Biblical characters. In general, lists fall within the "lists" category, which really needs its own standard in the deletion policy. Do we delete all lists from Wikipedia? What about the periodic table? Technically, that is a list, but a very famous list with well established notability. 24.22.219.38 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Blates has been up for deletion as it is un-notable. The DJ has a large local fanbase in my area, and he himself is in support of the article, making us assume it is 100% factually correct. Has discussion about him on myspace etc, yet as he has not yet featured in any publicaitons, therefore sources are not verifyable. user:moore.jonathan 23rd september 2007. (UTC)

Articles

edit

For completed votes, see Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/results.

  • Principality of Marlborough - Early 1990s secessionist micronation in Queensland. Received national press, radio and TV coverage. Was nominated for deletion by same editor a year ago, and failed. Sour grapes renomination.
  • Grand Duchy of Avram - Tasmanian micronation involved in major federal court case. Founder was later elected to state parliament under the name "Grand Duke of Avram". Has survived several previous AFD's.
  • Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina - Australian micronation founded in 1980s. Founder and associates jailed for various fraudulent schemes. Received national TV, press coverage. Was nominated for deletion by same editor a year ago, and failed. Sour grapes renomination.

Note: all of the above are part of a concerted effort by 1 raving deletionist nutter to singlehandedly wipe out all articles about micronations from WP overnight. --203.36.157.8 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven [1] valid articles are listed for systematic deletion. If they are deemed to be worthy of deletion, hundreds of others could follow. Anything would help. Dfrg.msc 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 4 useful categories have been put up for deletion, just because some people can't accept that there is an internationally-recognized region in the world called 'Kurdistan'. if u could take a look at it and give your vote, thx. Soapyyy 84.103.196.124 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ Deleted


→ Deleted


→ Deleted


  • en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps A HUGE chunk of maps that an editor with a personal crusade against what he perceives to be "gamecruft." The issue here, however, is en:WP:NOT; he claims it's game guide material. This is the third AfD on some of these articles in the past two months; maybe if we win one more, people will finally accept that they're valid articles. A merge, as some people are suggesting, would not work: the resulting article would be huge! --72.75.212.117 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (Posting anonymously so the nominator doesn't flame me for asking for others' support, which he did to someone else) → No Consensus[reply]

→ Deleted


→ Kept


  • en:wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problem-reaction-solution. An article about a real consept, NPOV, well sourced and real. The article does not claim the consept to be real, but only reports of its existance, and describes what the people using the term view are examples of the consept being used. However, since the consept is controversial, the article describing the consept is about to be deleted by the hostile majority, although it fullfills none of the criteria for deletion. The people voting for its deletion are twisting the meaning of rules and inventing new meaning for old rules in order to claim valid grounds for deletion. A real dissgrace for wikipedia.--85.226.2.109 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

→ Deleted


→ Deleted


  • en:wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NaSTA A national organisation representing student television stations across the UK. Not only this page, but also all Wikipedia pages on UK (but not US) student television stations are being threatened with deletion. Several deletion recommendations are against wiki policy, as the stations involved have been covered in articles in national media.
  • en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polar_Design An interactive agency cited in multiple third party sources and the recipient of multiple awards, targeted for deletion by a select group of editors who are failing to consider how the article meets the actual guidelines in Wikipedia:WP:CORP and demontrates notability in other respect. The article has been revised multiple times to meet those editors' concerns, so resistence to inclusion seems based on biases against any type of company remotely involved in web design, regardless of its demonstrated notability in other arenas. Endless blue 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Policies and Guidelines Requiring Deserving Immediate Attention

edit

Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

edit

Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles is a proposed policy/guideline to allow speedy deletion of unsourced articles, even if there is nothing wrong with them besides being unsourced. This proposal threatens to throw a huge percent of new articles up for speedy deletion, and possibly all of Wikipedia, if certain versions pass. Please contribute to the discussion of a possible trial run. --Zytican 16:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights

edit

User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [2], [3], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [4] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [5] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [6]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[7] --BostonMA 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

edit

→ Deleted

Meta deletion policy

edit

Please cast your inclusionist vote in this permanent poll in Meta talk:Deletion policy. Iasson 13:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's Delete Deletionism section to /dev/null

Policy discussions

edit

Deletion policy

edit

→ In Progress

→ In Progress

→ In Progress

→ In Progress

→ In Progress

→ In Progress

→ In Progress

Policy

edit

Moved to /comments

Inclusionism and Copyrighted texts

edit

"There are some things that are copyright" (Thryduulf Copyrighted), so we are not allowed by international laws to edit them. For those things, the rampant inclusionist wikipedians can use the {{wikicache}} template, then lock-protect the page (or in case they lack administrator privileges they can send copyrighted texts to article's history which fortunately is not GFDL yet).

Wikipedians deserve to read copyrighted texts, the way googlepedians or yahoopedians are doing, they also deserve to discuss those texts, and vote for them.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Votes_needing_immediate_attention_archive&oldid=24876588"