Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:21, 27 April 2005

• ]

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

Purpose of this page

It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:

1. People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Votes for deletion (VfD), because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion but were ignored.
2. Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
   • As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

How to use this page

If you wish to undelete an article, follow the procedure explained at Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy. If the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.

If you wish to view a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form — either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also Misplaced Pages:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.

Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/deleted. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/undeleted

If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Temporary undeletion

Votes for undeletion

Admins - please review the deleted history of these requests and provide the most complete version for discussion here.

Add new article listings below here

April 27 2005

Diagnosis: Murder

Deleted with copy vio concerns, explained in article talk that this is not the case. --Cool Cat 11:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your request didn't make it clear that the information would be released under the GFDL license and could be and will be copied all over the Internet. This isn't appropriate copyright release. RickK 66.60.159.190 17:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Cool Cat was dishonest from the beginning about this posting, denying at first that it was copyrighted, then claiming he had prior permission, then claiming he got permission after the fact (see discussion currently on my talk page). Furthermore, the text was copied from two websites, and the e-mail he speaks of at best covered one. If he likes the show that much, it shouldn't be a problem for him to use his own words to expand the new one. Postdlf 18:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 24 2005

Elf Only Inn

Webcomic deleted for lack of notability. The deletion debate and the article failed to mention its best claim for notability, namely that it had a several page crossover with Penny Arcade. Not the most important article in the world, but it's still a webcomic of non-trivial note, and I'd like to get the chance to expand the article with some more information and let it go through another VfD debate in its modified state. Snowspinner 17:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Update: WHAT? I did some more looking into it, and this is a KeenSpot comic. For those not up on webcomics, that means that the comic ran under one of the biggest webcomic sites in existence. This is not a trivial comic at all, and its low Alexa rating is probably more related to its being ended than anything else. Frankly, I think there's a strong case to be made for Keenspot and Modern Tales comics being inherently notable. This was a bad VfD - it was an article that could easily have been fixed if anyone had noticed it in the five day period. The fact that nobody did should not mean that the article can now never be written. Snowspinner 03:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Further comments: I note that even the strictest webcomic inclusion grounds (Which have largely been backed off on now) said to allow the top ten Keenspace strips. Keenspace is the more minor version of Keenspot. The fact that Elf Only Inn graduated up to Keenspot from Keenspace means that it was more notable than the top ten Keenspace strips. In other words, this met the strict webcomic inclusion guidelines. Snowspinner 15:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. The crossover makes it more notable than many of the webcomics we have articles for. Gamaliel 19:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see any grounds for undeletion here since the article was really a poorly written stub. Also, as crossovers are rather common among webcomics, I'm not sure how that demonstrates notability. However, if you think you can write a good article on the subject, by all means, go ahead. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Although crossovers are fairly common, the lack of crossovers is one of the somewhat notable things about Penny Arcade - I think there have only been two. Snowspinner 14:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Beware of those who will delete it anyway, despite being completely different content. --SPUI (talk) 16:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per VfD. Grue 15:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If you want to write an article on Elf Only Inn, you're probably better off doing so from scratch, as the deleted article was of poor quality. --Carnildo 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Everyking 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice to know the limits of your inclusionism. Snowspinner 00:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-notability is outside the limits of my inclusionism. Everyking 00:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If someone is going to recreate it, they must be aware that the main problem was not the poor article, but lack of notability. Was it seriously discussedsomewhere else outside its home? In some permanent sources? I.e., chat rooms don't count. Mikkalai 02:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Worthless. Postdlf 02:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain I'd say that if Snowspinner (or anyone else) wants to take another shot at this article, they should by all means go for it. On the other hand, the dismal Alexa rank of 5,546,155 suggests very severe notability problems with the subject. I know Alexa results don't count for everything, but for a webcomic, it's pretty important, and I doubt it would survive another VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. If a decent editor will bother to put in the effort to make a borderline deletion - and this was borderline - into a good article, only good can come of it - David Gerard 16:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Article not a useful starting point. Anyone who wants to write a half-decent new article may do any time without prejudice. If a new article is created and for whatever reason is speedied as a re-creation I will gladly vote to undelete that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Webcomics are truly a dime a dozen. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Above vote was deleted, by accident I think. I have restored it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Make sure to expand. I love comics too.--Jondel 04:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, notability not established the first time. Wiwaxia 07:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see where it is estabilished the second time. Grue 09:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 20, 2005

Daniel C. Boyer

In 2004, he told us he was scheduled to appear in the 2005 Who's Who in America. What ever happened with that? 24.4.127.164 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering how the last IP to make this comment on here turned out to be a sockpuppet of Mr. Boyer ,, I say we disregard this desperate plea for attention. Bugger off. Postdlf 04:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did appear in the 2005 Who's Who in America. Now, lazy researcher though you may be, I think you would be able to look it up, or, if you don't want to do that, refrain from commenting on it. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, hello, Gov. Stoughton! No, 24.4.127.164 is Wiwaxia! I checked the box for "Stay logged in", it should have posted my name instead of that IP address. Still looking through false venues for sock puppets everywhere, aren't you? How the hell was that post a "plea for intention"? How the fuck was writing about the Daniel C. Boyer appearance in Who's Who "desperate"? I merely nominate the Daniel C. Boyer article for undeletion and that means I am Daniel C. Boyer? If I'm that artist, then you're J. Wales. Wiwaxia 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick look at 24.4.127.164's contribution history shows a variety of (irregularly spaced) contributions, mostly of the housekeeping type -- in marked contrast to the diff you cite -- so your off-the-cuff accusation strikes me as markedly unfair to 24.4.127.164. Strikes me as an obvious question to answer, though I'm skeptical of the notoriety a Who's Who listing really shows.

I think you owe 24.4.127.164 an apology. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Screw 'em. It's a puppet. In addition to the first undeletion request by a Boyer IP, he recently added his own name to Requested Articles, which I don't believe was the first time. This has been his semi-sneaky M.O. since his article got trounced on VfD over a year ago and people have been watching him. What other reasonable explanation do you have for why an IP that hadn't even been used for several months would come back just to ask about a soundly rejected undeletion request from August, 2004 for a nonnotable, self-promoting Wikipedian? Postdlf 04:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello? The diff you just cited is from User:141.219.44.182 (contribution history), not User:24.4.127.164 (contribution history. You can tell the difference between 24.4.127.164 and 141.219.44.182, can't you? You can tell the difference in their contributions, can't you? Or do you tell all IP-number contributors to go screw themselves?

Further hint, courtesy SamSpade.org:

• 24.4.127.164 = c-24-4-127-164.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (Comcast Cable, Mt. Laurel, NJ)
• 141.219.44.182 = patpc27.lib.mtu.edu (Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI)

So what's your "reasonable explanation" for conflating the two? --Calton | Talk 04:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conduct. 65.174.34.14 and 141.219.44.182 were both used to promote a Boyer article and also to edit his user page. True, both of those resolve to Boyer's hometown (Hancock and Houghton are within about a mile of each other), and 24.4.127.164 resolves (actually) to a local Comcast server in Philly, but I don't see why that matters. I for one have logged into Misplaced Pages from at least eight different computers in four or five different states on both U.S. coasts within the past year. Are you shackled to your home computer? 24.4.127.164 also hasn't edited the Boyer userpage yet, but the main point is that Boyer has obviously used multiple and unrelated IPs before to do this kind of thing. Postdlf 05:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I guess you can't tell the difference in their contributions or haven't bothered looking. Let's try this one more time, since you are seriously missing the point. You slagged 24.4.127.164 and justified yuor slagging by pointing to someone else's edit (141.219.44.182). You did this despite the fact that 24.4.127.164's edit history doesn't have a single page in common with 141.219.44.182, (nor, as far as I can tell, with User:Daniel C. Boyer himself) and has neither edited the Boyer userpage (nice attempt at ass-covering with that "yet" - your crystal ball working okay?) nor edited any other surrealism/Daniel C. Boyer obsession article. Now you're crossing over from overzealous to outright intellectual dishonesty. You were wrong, you were insulting, and all your handwaving doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me all this time, Calton. Wiwaxia 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trying for an Oscar there? It was a reasonable suspicion based on outward conduct. Meh. Postdlf 03:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious keep deleted this is either a very clumsy attempt at sockpuppetry, or perhaps a somewhat clever stealth attack against Boyer. In any case, a Who's Who entry, even if true, certainly does not show notability for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Incidentally, I don't see any need for apologies here. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kp Del, no new evidence presented, and if there were evidence of W's W that wouldn't do it. --Jerzy (t) 04:19, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • There is evidence of Who's Who. It's called a book. Perhaps you've heard of them. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry buddy, but an appearance in Who's Who doesn't necessarily prove notability, and you're not helping your case with smart-arse remarks. Keep Deleted. (Incidentally, you already perform auto-fellatio with enough vigour on your user page, is a main namespace article really necessary?) File:Australia flag large.png plattopus 17:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not advocating for a main namespace article. I am listing you on Requests for comment. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • You're trying to undelete the article on yourself in the main namespace... how can you post here and still dispute that? And as for the RfC, I believe you need to have attempted to work out the supposed "dispute" in my talk page beforehand, and there needs to be two seperate complainants. Honestly I think you crave a bit of melodrama (and to be the centre of attention), but disrupting people by frivolously using RfC is just annoying. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus 18:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Who's Who means absolutely nothing. And talk about frivolous rfc! --SPUI (talk) 17:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 22, 2005

Falling Up (band)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Falling_Up_%28band%29 was deleted by a VFD apparently around April 9th, unknown to me. I never knew a falling up band article had ever been created, and I wrote an entirely new one. The main reason given for the band to be deleted was that they had made only one CD independantly and were therefore non-notable, whereas in reality they were signed on to BEC recordings, a major Christian label that also produces for big Christian Contemporary names like Jeremy Camp, Kutless. (Take a look at http://www.becrecordings.com/front.php). As well, there is a precedent for single-album Christian Contemporary bands on the wikipedia--for example, Casting crowns. To summarize My article was different from the article deleted and should, at the least, get a separate VFD. The reason for the VFD (independant release and therefore non-notability) was untrue since they were signed on to BEC. Please put my article back :) -Cookiemobsta

Agreed that a separate VFD is needed if it wasn't a re-creation of the old one. Can an admin verify this? --SPUI (talk) 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. The first version (that went through VfD) simply stated that Falling Up was a Christian rock band and then listed its members. Comments in the VfD mentioned the lack of notability. The latest version, while a stub, is more informative and offers at least a basis for notability. I don't know enough about the labels to make a call on that basis, but I wouldn't consider this version a recreation of the deleted article. SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. VfU is not to be used to try to get VfD votes redone. RickK 21:30, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless the article is a re-creation, rather than a new article that was created, deletion policy clearly states that it must be separately VFDed. This at the very least prevents me from writing a substub that says "Stephen King was a man. He was not a dragon-man." and taking it through VFD, and then using that as a rationale to delete any article on Stephen King. You've done this before and you're doing it again. Please stop trolling. That has to be what you're doing, as you've been informed before that the deletion policy clearly protects articles like this.
  • Is there some way for both the old and new revisions to be undeleted temporarily? Like a full history undeletion rather than just the most recent article? It would be nice to verify that in fact the two articles were different. --SPUI (talk) 21:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, by the way, this VFU is not for trying to redo the VFD. It's for trying to undo what seems to be an improper (though possibly well-intentioned) speedy. --SPUI (talk) 22:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak undelete. They are listed on allmusic.com but have no written entry. Gamaliel 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, this reason may be invalid, since it treats this like another VFD on the subject. The main issue here is whether the recent speedy was valid. According to the nominator, it was not the same article; good faith is the only thing to go by here, until we have some other evidence either way. --SPUI (talk) 22:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• By the way, making my vote clear - undelete unless we have evidence that the two articles were the same. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have undeleted my original deletion. I sincerely apologize to Cookiemobsta for the confusion. I gave improper weight to the given speedy reason of VFD recreation and did a hasty and insufficient scan of the content without properly comparing the two versions. I will be more careful in the future. - BanyanTree 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And I have redeleted it. It is entirely inappropriate to undelete an article and remove it from this page one day after it was listed here. Give it the complete five day treatment it is supposed to have. RickK 04:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - an article is only considered a reincarnation subject to speedy deletion if it is the same (or substantially so) to the article that was VFD'd. Since this article was different, according to several posters, it should have gone through the standard VFD process, not been speedied. Firebug 04:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's exactly the same article. The only difference has to do with how extensive the verbiage is. The original VfD had to do with notability, not about whether or not the article was skimpy. There were three delete votes, no keeps, and all three had to do with the band's notability, not about the size of the article. RickK 05:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I urge you to reread deletion policy, and stop second-guessing the policy when it doesn't jive with your view of things. --SPUI (talk) 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please point to the deletion policy which allows an article to be recreated after VfD, to be listed for one day on VfU, to be recreated after being on VfU for one day, to have its listing be deleted from VfU after being here for one day, and not being listed on VfD after having been recreated, in violation of the policy on this very page? RickK 19:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • The article was not recreated. The listing was removed because the article was speedied in error, and the deleter fixed his error. --SPUI (talk) 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • What do you mean, the article was not recreated? You mean that the VfD was for an article that never existed? Or that once the VfD had passed its time, it was never deleted? Sorry, the history proves otherwise. The article was not speedied in error, it is Misplaced Pages policy to delete recreations of articles which have been voted for deletion. RickK 23:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
            • The article was created anew, as a different article. It was not a recreation because it was not the same article. --SPUI (talk) 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. From looking at the old article and the new one, they're very clearly different. Additionally, BanyanTree has admitted it was a mistake to delete it. Unfortunately his attempt at rectifying the situation has been held up. Even if you wanted to look at the old VFD, the delete votes were because the article didn't establish notability and the new article does that. CryptoDerk 23:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • They are not clearly different. They are about the exact same band. The original VfD was about the band's notability, not about how well the article was written. RickK 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please step back for one moment and read the policies. The articles are different. The band is not, but the deletion policy pertains to the article, not the subject. --SPUI (talk) 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The content of the article is different, period. What the article refers to is the same thing, but the content is different. "Notability not established" seems to me as if it refers to the article itself. If they had said "not notable" then I would have taken it to refer to the band itself. Anyway, I've asked Radiant just to be sure. CryptoDerk 04:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks for that. Whenever I vote "notability not established", I would be willing to reconsider it if/when additional facts come up. WP:MUSIC comes to mind. Given that it is under heavy debate here whether the new and old articles are different, I'd be willing to take it on good faith and take the new article to VfD for re-evaluation. Thus, undelete. Radiant_* 08:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Just a note - I have posted an RFC on RickK about these and other similar actions. --SPUI (talk) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • RfC because you don't know how to follow policy? I refuse to participate. RickK 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, while the author may argue it is a different article, it is still the same band and the same reasons to delete it remain the same. I was the person responsible for the original nomination - the band is not notable, they have produced only one album on an independent label. The consensus was to delete. JamesBurns 04:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I have read Radiant's comment, and the VfD debate. I agree that "Notability not established" is different from "not notable". If the rewritten article establishes notability, it should not be speedy deleted as a recreation, and deserves a second go on VfD. Sjakkalle 13:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Undelete. Based upon what I have read, this article has significantly changed and improved, enough so that it should be undeleted to have a second chance to experience further organic growth and expansion. (This is a vote in support for undeletion on an undeletion-related page.) --GRider\ 23:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) GRider is forbidden to vote on deletion matters as a result of an arbcomm ruling. RickK 23:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Undeleted. It was improperly speedied, so I have undone the error. Take it to VfD if you want it gone, this isn't the same article as before. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • And speedy deleted once again. Quit undeleting articles out of process. The article can only be undeleted once this vote has been completed. RickK 23:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• The old and new article are at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for all to see. --SPUI (talk) 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. RickK, is it that time of the month or something? Or did you forget that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encyclopedia ("A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically"), not a medium for you to show off your ability (and misplaced willingness) to follow rules to the letter. When it's convenient for you, of course... ugen64 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Shouldn't have been deleted. The sooner this process ends, the better. What does it serve except to stir up hostility? Rick, please reconsider and just let it go.Grace Note 03:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll let it go on April 27, after the appropriate 5 day VfU vote time has passed. RickK 04:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. No one can prevent you from creating and sustaining a focus of hostility, resentment and flaming. I'm just really disappointed that a user of such good standing feels that any of that helps build an encyclopaedia.Grace Note 06:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not the one throwing RfC's and nasty personal attacks around. RickK 06:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• WP:POINT. We can all see its contents in its last two incarnations at RickK's RFC, we can all see that they're about the same band, and we can all see that the most recent one still wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in a frying pan of surviving VFD, since it doesn't come within miles of satisfying WP:NMG. We can leave it on VFD and/or VFU for months in various slightly differing incarnations recreated by various slightly differing sockpuppets if you like, which would, I'm sure, please the band members, both of their fans, and maybe even the radical inclusionists. I submit, however, that this article is precisely the reason why we have speedy deletion criterion G4. Keep deleted. Korath (Talk) 04:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is absolutely insane, the only difference between the old article and the new article is that the author has bothered to write their names out on full and the albums tracks in full. It does not change the notability of the band. This is going to set a bad precedent in future if it passes - any article that is speedied can simply be resucitated by just changing the length of a person's or object's name and the author argue that it is a new article. JamesBurns 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What the motherfucking hell are you talking about? Go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RickK#Response. The old one was just a single line and a list of names. The new one has a paragraph at the beginning about the band and a track listing. Stop trolling and choke on autofellatio. --SPUI (talk) 06:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Damn, SPUI, are you off your meds? You have gone completely over the edge. RickK 06:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hah, I bet you thought that was a personal attack too when you typed it. --SPUI (talk) 07:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Well I consider calling someone a troll and telling someone to choke on autofellatio a personal attack. You need to read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. It still doesnt detract from the argument that it is exactly the same band - the argument for its deletion hasnt changed at all. JamesBurns 04:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete - Come on guys, this is getting beyond the point of being simply sad. I worry that this kind of silliness is going to embarass all concerned in the future. If Falling Up aren't notable enough to engage your interest - please feel free to abstain from all of the following actions:

• Reading the article
• Editing the article
• Recommending the article to friends
• Using the article as an indicator of the general quality of Misplaced Pages

and most importantly

• caring whether or not the article exists.

nsh 06:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete because (a) the article is entirely unrelated to the old one and therefore not a re-creation, (b) the new version of the article establishes notability, (c) I've heard of Falling Up and (d) hey -- two people wrote articles on the band independently -- this sure isn't your typical article on a one-week-old vanity band that no one has heard of. Wiwaxia 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The article is almost identical, VfD procedure was followed, no irregularities have been shown. It was listed for the correct period, there were no keep votes and it was properly deleted. In my opinion this article was properly deleted and attempt to recreate this article should be summarily deleted. No evidence has been presented to suggest that undeleting this article would make Misplaced Pages better. On Dante's recreations, I cite WP:POINT and will now redelete. I consider what has gone on here to be a serious abuse of process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  On Tony's "citation" above, I cite Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and await an apology. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

  I freely apologise for any offence given (See User talk:Dante Alighieri and, for what provoked it, User talk:Tony Sidaway) but still contend that the deliberate recreation of an article already speedied by an administrator as a recreation, is an abuse of process. We can legitimately disagree on whether this is the case without attacking one another. I contend that it is essential to the deletion process that no administrator should ever feel comfortable about recreating an article in these circumstances when we all know that the right place for recreations is VfU, where we all get to discuss things out in the open. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I apologize for misunderstanding Tony's previous statement. I took offense to what I believed was being said, not what Tony meant. My position is that the VfU process is not being circumvented, but is inappropriate in this situation, seeing as how the article in question was improperly speedy deleted. It is standard procedure when an article is improperly speedy deleted to recreate the article so that it can go through the proper VfD procedure. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, notable band, valid article. Grue 17:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, not noteworthy. Not valid article for a VfU, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It has been claimed that the current article gives information that makes the band more notable. I think it's a reasonable assumption--why else would anyone add the information? But the earlier article claimed that they'd made a CD, whereas the current article makes it plain that it was a demo CD. On the other hand, the current article says they signed to a record label., and yes, they did sign to a record label, the one that also signed Kutless. Does this make them as notable as Kutless? Their website contains messages such as "2.18.05 hey the Xtour has begun and it is going good!" and "4.06.05 if you have missed us at shows lately, it's because we have not been playing any." What happened in the intervening six weeks? The only other tour on their website apparently involved quite a few church gigs alongside a number of other bands. How would these guys fare under the Notability and music guidelines of WikiProject Music? On the other hand, I don't want to go overboard. The Beatles played in Hamburg for months on end and didn't really get anywhere. I suppose mostly I'm annoyed that , in my opinion, this article was recreated after it was deleted, and while the VfU process was in progress. It looks to me as if there is not sufficient respect for the deletion process and the undeletion process, and this has produced an unwanted deletion war. We don't need that kind of thing if we can all agree to use VfD and VfU, and abide by policy on speedying of recreations, without quibbles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The individual who "recreated" the article is not the same person who wrote the initial article. This should quiet the assertions that somehow the "same" user recreated the "same" article in order to circumvent the previous deletion vote. (see User talk:Cookiemobsta for details). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed. This is about an article on the same group, with the same name, but created by a different person. The author of the initial article has changed. Do we have consensus for restoration of the article in this form? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well... if the SD was legit, we can't undelete it until tomorrow anyway and we don't need consensus, just a majority. If the SD wasn't legit, the article should be undeleted immediately and consensus here is irrelevant. IMO, what we should be discussing is whether or not the SD was in line with policy. There is such a discussion taking place here if people care to be involved. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• UNDELETE -Deserves a rewrite by Cookiemobster.--Jondel 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 23, 2005

Paul Bouche

A new article was submitted so saying that it should remain undeleted due to the history and votes should not be enough I think the people giving their opinions should have a chance to see the fully revised article that was posted in April 2005 and not judge on the discussion of a different article posted over a year ago.

I still think it's a vanity page, originally by Mr Bouche himself, though this anon may or may not be Mr Bouche, but he doesn't seem notable, but I'd like someone else to have a look. see talk:Paul Bouche; also anon comment that follows Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

\Did u see? the links that are enclosed in his article? I am familiar with Paul Bouche. How many of your listings have won an Emmy award? As a matter of fact I was searching for him after Discussion and presentation by him @ Miami International University of Art and Design.

He has been arround for many years and has been an inspiration for many young hispanics as myself. I guess you are not familiar with the field of spanish media. That is ok. But know I also searched The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, La Opinion (Los Angeles Main Hispanic Paper), Even Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Hispanic Business magazine have featured articles about him. Perhaps you should too. I don't see anyone on the list of comments that strike me as Hispanic or Latino. Ask arround. Even though you probably know no hispanic americans.

Just because you dont know someone doesn't mean they are not relevant for our community 35 million in the US and 400,000,000 arround the world. (end anon comment)

• Keep deleted. VfU is not a place to try to rerun votes already cast on VfD. RickK 21:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid VfD process. Radiant_* 07:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete Hispanically notable--Jondel 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages maintenance