Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4v4l0n42 (talk | contribs) at 13:36, 15 November 2013 (new sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2013 November 14
2013 November 16 >

15 November 2013

Lil Chuckee

Lil Chuckee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks says that there were 23,228 attempts in a typical week (including from outside Wikipedia) to access page Lil Chuckee. Some sort of page is needed there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the article was totally unsourced, so there ain't much DRV can do, other than to suggest you find some sources and write an article. this is the only substantive source I found in a quick search, but there's a lot of incidental mentions, so other sources are probably lurking out there. WilyD 09:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2010 deletion isn't really relevant any more; deletion discussions expire after a while. How long "a while" takes depends on various things but three years is definitely well past that. We should permit creation of a sourced version. The new article would be immune to G4 but subject to AfD in the normal way at editorial discretion.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Pistono

Federico Pistono (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was recently notified that the page Federico Pistono, was being considered for deletion. Obviously, just as I did not interfere with the original article, I could not be part of the discussion either, so I just observed and let Wikipedia run its course. After it was deleted, I contacted the admin in question TParis, expressing some concerns, and his reply was as following:

Editors do the best they can to give an honest review but they arn't perfect. If you think there was a mistake made during the discussion, there is a review process at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV. There is no problem with you opening a review even if you are the subject of an article. Simple state that you have sources that were not considered in the deletion discussion. If you have online links to those sources, that will help.

From what I understand, there were two main concerns with the article as it was:

  1. Lack of reliable third party sources
  2. The article needed re-writing

I do not intend to discuss the merits of the decision. My intention here is to simply provide links to articles which I think might have been overlooked by those who reviewed the page initially, possibly because they were not properly indexed by Google. I rest in the hands of the Wikipedia community to decide what to do with them.

  1. Huffington Post (English, video) (source)
  2. Wall Street Journal (English, video) (source)
  3. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by Stanford Cultural Historian Piero Scaruffi (English) (source)
  4. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” at the Sturbridge Times (English) (source)
  5. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by the Socialist Party of Great Britain - Will Robots Cause Capitalism to Collapse? (English) (source)
  6. RT Interview (English, Video) (source)
  7. RAI 3 reportage (Italian) (source)
  8. Canale 5 reportage (Italian) (source)
  9. Interview with Computerworld (Dutch) "Esplori: all video education in any language" (source) and "The Pitfalls of Innovation" (source)
  10. TG1 (Italian National TV) article (source)
  11. Wired article (Italian) (source)
  12. Free Software Foundation (English, audio)- Interview with Free Software Foundation Brazil (source)
  13. The Zeitgeist Movement Interview (English) (source)
  14. Wedwereld article (Dutch) (source)
  15. El Universal Interview (Spanish) "Los robots robarán tu empleo, pero está bien" (source)
  16. Jornal do Comércio (Portuguese) - Você vai perder seu emprego (May 20, 2013) (source)
  17. Rede Globo (Brazilian TV, Portuguese, Video) - Interview on Brazilian TV Tudo+(source)
  18. Huffington Post (Italian) (here, (here
  19. Folha de S. Paulo article (Portuguese) (source)
  20. Singularity Hub article (English) (source)
  21. Interview with Tom's Hardware (Italian) "I robot ci ruberanno il lavoro ma ci ridaranno la vita" (Robots Will Steal Your Job, But Also Give Your Life Back). (source)

Finally, there were four awards/recognitions listed, perhaps the most significant of which being the Young Knight Prize Award (Premio Cavalierato Giovanile) (source).

I don't know how many of these references are useful and fall under Wikipedia's policies of reliability etc. I just thought it was worth mentioning them.

best, 4v4l0n42 (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There were 36 sources cited in the deleted article. The AfD already considered those. DRV is for significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. See WP:DRVPURPOSE Please identify which of the above 21 references were not considered during the AfD and, of those, please identify which of those represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:GNG). -- Jreferee (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_15&oldid=581768966"