| Revision as of 07:28, 11 February 2008 editNE2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers190,449 edits →Deletion review← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:33, 11 February 2008 edit undoYamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs)47,174 edits →Deletion review: re:Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :I don't work with images, and I think you are probably more familiar with images than I do. I have no idea what tags go with what kind of images, or what kind of criteria's there are for images. So rather than restoring the image without knowing what to do with it, I will rather trust your editorial judgement on what to do with the images. However, I do plan on getting familiar with working with images somewhere in the future, but probably not until I get enough free time. ] ] 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | :I don't work with images, and I think you are probably more familiar with images than I do. I have no idea what tags go with what kind of images, or what kind of criteria's there are for images. So rather than restoring the image without knowing what to do with it, I will rather trust your editorial judgement on what to do with the images. However, I do plan on getting familiar with working with images somewhere in the future, but probably not until I get enough free time. ] ] 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::There was nothing wrong with the image; it just needed the proper hoop jumped through. I will do that if they are undeleted; I see no reason the old image description shouldn't remain. --] 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ::There was nothing wrong with the image; it just needed the proper hoop jumped through. I will do that if they are undeleted; I see no reason the old image description shouldn't remain. --] 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Hmm, fair enough, I undeleted these images. If you are going to add the fair use rationale, please do it as soon as possible. ] ] 07:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:33, 11 February 2008
- Please add new entries at the bottom of this page.
- Please SIGN your entry with ~~~~
- If you are here to report a vandal, please use WP:AIV., unless I'm online.
- Archives
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Zaiarna
Hi, I am most surprised at the outcome of this debate. I understand that it involves more than counting votes, but there were four votes in favour of delete and only two for keep. How does that equate to "possibility leaning towards keep"? The article still remains devoid of independent references, and claims of notability are unproven. Before I plan any further response, I am interested in knowing more of your reasons for maintaining this article. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that one of the reference is independent or not is in question, however, it is a reliable source nevertheless. The subject has won two awards, which establishes somewhat of a notability, according to WP:MUSIC, if barely. Some of the deletion comments I find on the debate seemed irralevent to the discussion, such as POV issues and copyvio. If there is an evidence which shows that the source is not independent then I'm probably willing to consider its deletion, however, I do not see any evidence of that so far, as it seems that the independency of the source can probably be debated for weeks. So, basically a somehwat reliable source plus with some awards won shows some borderline notability. The "possibily leaning towards keep" is very weak, I would say, and it is more based on the arguments presented rather than the number of votes there are, especially with one of the !votes which brings issues that are irrelevent to the deletion criteria. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review
By "rationale", I meant fair use rationale, which the images were deleted for lacking. --NE2 05:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have the images, so they would need to be undeleted so I can add the rationale. There should probably be a speedier process for this, but I couldn't find one. --NE2 05:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it a problem to restore the original information? --NE2 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't work with images, and I think you are probably more familiar with images than I do. I have no idea what tags go with what kind of images, or what kind of criteria's there are for images. So rather than restoring the image without knowing what to do with it, I will rather trust your editorial judgement on what to do with the images. However, I do plan on getting familiar with working with images somewhere in the future, but probably not until I get enough free time. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with the image; it just needed the proper hoop jumped through. I will do that if they are undeleted; I see no reason the old image description shouldn't remain. --NE2 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, fair enough, I undeleted these images. If you are going to add the fair use rationale, please do it as soon as possible. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with the image; it just needed the proper hoop jumped through. I will do that if they are undeleted; I see no reason the old image description shouldn't remain. --NE2 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)