Dr._Leigh-Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

deletion was wrongfully due to racism, and falsely listed as vandalism Future9 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore new article This is a drastic improvement over the original. There are NEW sources. Further, the previous articles were not in the proper format, which made it difficult for references to be located. There have always been many references and sources. It is clear, this is a racist attack on Dr. Leigh-Davis for being a black professor. You won’t even allow 15 minutes for anyone to review or add to this page. There are many, many, many, much less notable white professors on this Wikipedia. The media needs to do a report on Wikipedia’s racism.

Why don’t you at least let someone, add the references proving there should be a page for Dr. Leigh-Davis? In fact, I just added three credible references, there is no way anyone even had “time” to pull the references and read them. Thereby, why don’t you not only let references be added ; common sense dictates you should allow time for the references to at least be read, and then reviewed. I am requesting IMMEDIATE “deletion review,” and I may even go to the media. Lastly, citing deletion based on "vandalism," is an outright blatant lie. There has been ABSOLUTELY NO VANDALISM. In fact, a completely new article was submitted, with new references and new subject matter. Future9 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Future9Future9 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Can you please link some of the references so they can be verified, I have spent a great deal of time looking for anything that wasn't a press release by PR.com or the like, and only came up with a primary source of the University which according to the copyright hasn't been updated in over 2 years.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The cache shows them to be all of the pr/user submitted content kind. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion-Appears to be a hoax, as explained in the AfD. Yurin University doesn't even appear to HAVE a school of law, much less have this woman as the dean of said school. The sources in the cached article are all press releases, at least one written by the subject. This is a bit more elaborate than your typical Wikipedia hoax, but its still a hoax.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] has a DR.Leigh-Davis listed as a Vice-President/Provost but the website seems questionable.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I'm not sure if I can !vote here, but if Yuin University isn't even notable enough for its own article, how would a professor who works there be notable? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment got to love the links at the bottom of the article. such as "http://www.Future9.org - Future 9 ~ ensuring the ultimate U.S. Supreme Court" - which has no content, no relation to the user ranting here I guess. And Dr Leigh Davis's google profile - fantastic - how come all her pictures are scans from newspapers/magazines? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore new article I just called Yuin University, which is listed in numerous university directories, at the number listed on Google, and there is a school of law. http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Yuin+university&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS376US377&ie=UTF-8 Stop lying. Additionally, racism is evidenced by all of the white, less credentialed professors, listed in Wikipedia. Citing a deletion based on "vandalism," is an outright blatant lie. There has been ABSOLUTELY NO VANDALISM. In fact, a completely new article was submitted, with new references and new subject matter. This article was wrongfully deleted due to racism, and falsely listed as “vandalism,” when there is absolutely no evidence of vandalism.

Future9 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Future9Future9 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks for repeating exactly what you said above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • (edit conflict)Do you have any evidence that Yurin University has a school of law, despite the university's own site not listing it? We can't, I'm afraid, just take your word for it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore new article Yuin University is clearly positively cited in Wikipedia, and is listed in hundreds (100+) of university directories as having been in business over 30 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Yuin+University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton,_California

Before you name-call, do some research. Further, a difference of opinion does not make something a hoax. Perhaps you should look up the definition of hoax. For example, I think Pepperdine University is a terrible university and I know of former students who have sued Pepperdine. However, I wouldn’t try to say Pepperdine U. is a hoax or doesn’t exist. But then again, I am an educated individual, with common sense. This racism needs to be reported to the NAACP, as well as, the media. CreativeEndeavors (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)CreativeEndeavors[reply]

• • Yes, I understand Yurin University exists. No one is disputing that. The question is whether it has a school of law, a fact you've yet to establish.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)You are obviously a sockpuppet of Future9 (talk · contribs) looking at the same accusations you make, as well as the similarly failed signature. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore new article Maybe some of you should turn off the computer and get into the mainstream. I have seen Dr. Leigh-Davis on television. Do you watch news programs? I just saw her commenting on immigration. I didn’t agree with her comments, but that does not support deletion. I was easily able to find information on Yuin University and called them. I was told there is a law school and that several programs are not on their website, because they only have their online degree programs on the website. I also was easily able to confirm Yuin University’s thirty year plus status with the State of California, by telephoning the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education. Learn how to communicate person-to-person and stop relying on the internet.

The anger in some of these postings, and the much less notable white counterparts listed in Wikipedia, really connotate racism is really behind this. Also, where is this so called "vandalism" that caused the deletion. Everyone is arguing notability, but the deletion says it was due to vandalism, which caused this name to immediately be blocked from being created or edited. If this is about notability, then the procedure is to leave the article up until a discussion is concluded. Racism is a possible explanation as to why procedures are not being followed, and the deleter lied and said there was "vandalism." All minorities should be outraged. TJJordan (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)TJJordan[reply]

• Another sock. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed:

• CreativeEndeavors (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TJJordan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Future9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Perhaps the conclusion that this is entirely a hoax is too sweeping, but all of the claims suggesting notability are unverifiable and suggest substantial falsification. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore new article I was easily able to pull up many credible sources on Dr. Leigh-Davis, going back several years, the citation below is The Wall Street Journal, 2008:

AFTRA - Information, News and Pictures - WSJ.com Sep 18, 2008 ... AFTRA - profile from the Wall Street Journal. ... Dr. Leigh-Davis is Written-in at American Federation of Television and Radio Artists ... topics.wsj.com/organization/a/aftra/4389 - Cached JaneDanielsPR (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)JaneDanielsPR[reply]

• Restore new articleDr. Leigh-Davis is listed as being a write-in candidate, right alongside Morgan Fairchild, by her fellow broadcasters and actors, in the recent A.F.T.R.A. (American Federation of Radio and Television) Union elections. Is A.F.T.R.A. a hoax also? Please realize, there are notable people who don’t have a strong internet presence. Several articles came up about Dr. Leigh-Davis and AFTRA, but I don’t have time to review them now.

JaneDanielsPR (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)JaneDanielsPR[reply]

• Restore new article The recent A.F.T.R.A. Union election results are here:

http://www.aftra.org/documents/LA_2010_General_Election_Voting_Results.pdf JaneDanielsPR (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)JaneDanielsPR[reply]

Another sock but at least this persona is calmer, and yes DR. Leigh-Davis is listed just like Big Bird, Sneezy, Sleepy, Tomato, Mickey Mouse and a few random comments are listed as write-ins. This is not reliable- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore new article Anyone is welcome to come to Yuin University to verify its existence. Since all of the naysayers are so self-righteous in their portrayal of the sanctity of Wikipedia; then you should follow your own article postings. For Yuin University has long been referenced on the City of Compton article.

Further, blocking users from the deletion discussion, who provide links to third-party references, is illegitimate. If this were a legitimate discussion, you would be reviewing all reference links and sources. I easily found, at least, three instances where Dr. Leigh-Davis is discussed in the Wall Street Journal. It is irrelevant what user introduced you to the third party information. The issue is: Are there Third Party References available? This, and the deletion being falsely based on “vandalism,” makes it appear there is an ulterior motive, such as racism. (There are many white counterparts with 1 to 0 sources/references, listed on Wikipedia.) Still, no one has answered the question: Where is the evidence of the “vandalism?” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Yuin+University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton,_California YuinUniversity (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)YuinUniversity[reply]

ERP5 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been deleted many times because it didn't attempt to assert notability and was a bit too much commercial. ERP5 is a very famous open source ERP and is based on new concepts which are used to conduct researches. I have written a new article on ERP5 based on all researches and online resources I could found. This new article is well sourced and I think it respects Wikipedia guidelines. The article is locked. Does an administrator can unlock it? Hirotanamux (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Do you have anything which could be described as a conflict of interest regarding this subject? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a student of Rogerio Atem and currently doing my master thesis on open source ERPs and project management based on ERP5 --Hirotanamux (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore new article A drastic improvement over the original, and there are sources, some of which are good. AfD optional. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Sources look more than strong enough at this point. Hobit (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a link to the definition of an ERP in this context would be handy. I assume Enterprise resource planning? Hobit (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I added the link to the ERP page in the first paragraph (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore The Beautiful code source alone seems ample for work on this to be restarted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radical Islam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is absolutely a legitimate category, unless wikipedians are of the ilk that believes all Muslims are extremists. Radical Islam describes only those who practice the most extreme (Radical) form of the religion. Tadpole256 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (original nominator). There were no flaws in the discussion where this was merged/deleted, which is here. Tadpole256, who created the category, was the only user in favour of keeping it. As mentioned in the original nomination, the subject is adequately categorized for in Category:Islamism. Having to decide where Islamism ends and "radical Islam" begins would be an unneeded complication in the process of using the categories. Note that there is no WP article called Radical Islam—it is a redirect to Islamism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close of the CfD as delete was a correct reading of consensus. There is nothing to suggest that the consensus was misconceived or that anything has changed since the consensus was formed.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse really no other way to close it given the !vote. On a CfD2 level, one could imagine using RSes to carefully populate this cat, but even then I think it would be a bad idea... Hobit (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Cfd was closed per consensus. --Kbdank71 10:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse consensus was very clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "I don't like the outcome" is not a valid DRV rationale. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, accurate reading of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:NPOV. Violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Dew Kane (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I don't see any problems with the closure; I'd have done so the same way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]