Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 9: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Piotr blass]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
→[[The Cheetah Girls 3]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
====[[The Cheetah Girls 3]]==== |
|||
[[The Cheetah Girls 3]] was delted some time ago for unknown reason. The page was created the second time with no proof links but info was featured in a magazine that couldn't be accessed online. I didn't understand that but now I have found more proof and believe that the page should be re-created. |
|||
http://www.onlineseats.com/the-cheetah-girls-tickets/index.asp |
|||
Thank You [[User:Jtervin]] (Not signed in) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The relevant line from the cited source is ''"The newest sequel The Cheetah Girls 3 is currently '''under script development''' and is '''said to be''' a theatrical release"'' (my emphasis added). In no way can wording like this constitute [[WP:V|verification]] of anything. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse deletion''', crystall balling. There is no deadline to meet. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls 3 (second nomination)|The previous AfD]] that deleted the article was done within process. All information relating to a third Cheetah Girls movie has been speculation and rumors, which does not belong on Wikipedia. You should be well aware of this, Jtervin. —[[User:NeoChaosX|NeoChaosX]] <font size="1"> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:NeoChaosX|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/NeoChaosX|contribs]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></font> 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' - this article has now been deleted five times for the same good reason - fails WP:V. This includes two AfDs. Rarely has such an insignificant article had so much attention. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Light frequency waves]]==== |
====[[Light frequency waves]]==== |
||
Revision as of 15:02, 14 September 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
9 September 2006
Deletion reason given was WP:OR. However, a simple logical derivation, which is instantly understandable, is not original research. I consider the term useful for usage in articles, because it is possible to make it a much shorter article than Electromagnetic radiation. It is a bit trivial, but the article also does not bother. It is also thinkable to add illustrations etc. If possible, please restore the the article to my userspace. The term is by the way infrequently used on the internet. It clearly narrows to that part of Electromagnetic radiation, which is visible, or in the same frequency range as visible light (for instance the article IR remote control could use this term).
Furthermmore, the article data was not really wrong. Thus i ask to reconsider the article nomination.User:Yy-bo 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Additional arguments
- http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22light+frequency+waves%22
- This prooves real usage of the term, where the usage of the term Light is just trivial and non-scientific.
- light wave frequencies give even more search hits: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22light+wave+frequencies%22
- It is important to search correctly for the complete term, not for the contained words.
- In my opinion, solid science fundamentals are required, even if they may look trivial. They can help to produce clear spelling. Some articles are really hudge, though the concept of light frequency waves could be integrated into the main article Light, or Electromagnetic radiation. The nomination was not including search results. This is the appreciate community place for a detailed argumentation. User:Yy-bo 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- As original deleter I went by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light frequency waves. I can't remember why I closed it early, although the fact that it was unreferenced, had the wrong title, and was entirely redundant to other much more authoritative articles probably played a part. Guy 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good. I do not see it being Bad science. For real, the term is used on a certain astronomy website, a serious manufacturer also uses exactly this term. Radiation, which is outbound the visible light, is, at times, not interesting. Also, the large spectrum illustration of the Light article is really hudge for a quick explanation. I had reasons to create the article. User:Yy-bo 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are missing the point somewhat. We have other, much better articles on the subject, including light and visible spectrum. Guy 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't know what you mean. My article also includes invisible Infrared and Ultraviolet, they are further discriminated by near infrared and far infrared. Most people know the spectrum of visible light from school. However, my article covers Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range of Light. It is used in that meaning of sense.
- The deletion nomination was somehow ignoring these facts. Now, here a list: Light, visible spectrum, Light frequency waves, Radiation, Electromagnetic radiation. The deletion nomination was not arguing the scientific reality, but calling it not an article, OR, see also WP:OR and Bad science. User:Yy-bo 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- The deleted article was a pretty poor thing. Feel free to try again, perhaps in your user space. Guy 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't know what you mean. My article also includes invisible Infrared and Ultraviolet, they are further discriminated by near infrared and far infrared. Most people know the spectrum of visible light from school. However, my article covers Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range of Light. It is used in that meaning of sense.
- You are missing the point somewhat. We have other, much better articles on the subject, including light and visible spectrum. Guy 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good. I do not see it being Bad science. For real, the term is used on a certain astronomy website, a serious manufacturer also uses exactly this term. Radiation, which is outbound the visible light, is, at times, not interesting. Also, the large spectrum illustration of the Light article is really hudge for a quick explanation. I had reasons to create the article. User:Yy-bo 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure (Yep, I voted delete in the original.) The search results for "light frequency waves" mostly from wikipedia echos or fringe science sites, and one Canadian news collection; please point to examples, if you think I'm wrong. The presence of search results on "light wave frequencies" is irrelevant to the discussion. It's possible that an encyclopedic article could be written about "visible and near-visible electromagnetic radiation" but there's little evidence that the term "light frequency waves" is the correct term, and the deleted article was not encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The original article is far too complicated. Who needs these formula each time? Sure they need to be there. Where is the understandable science? User:Yy-bo 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)