Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:42, 18 July 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 it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.
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.

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.

July 10, 2005

Digg

I would like to a temporary history-only undeletion for Digg so we can see what would be undeleted with respect to the vote below for general undeletion. --Mysidia 13:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion

Votes for undeletion

July 17, 2005

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer

Required as evidence for an arbitration request. ~~~~ 19:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Undeleted for arbcom purposes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

July 14, 2005

Abdullah ibn Harith

I hade several editions to the article during the voting. I agree that it was a possible canditade for a Vfd at the begining, but not at the time it got deleted, since it had been uppdated to be a article worth keeping.

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Abdullah ibn Harith

• Undelet. Its worth a article now, and i can always add even more as i research more :)--Striver 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - valid VfD - What makes it worth an article now? - Tεxτurε 15:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  Content at time of deletion: (not including see also and two external links)

  this is a sahaba of Muhammad

  When Abdullah ibn Harith ibn Sakhbarah Azdi was a young man he married Um Ruman, a girl of his tribe. He had a son with her named Tufail ibn Abdullah and then they moved to where he became the partner and companion of Abu Bakr. However, he passed away soon after this.

• Keep deleted. valid VfD. Page wasn't notable. He seems to want 100,000 articles like this. One for each sahaba. --Eliezer 15:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD (3 delete - 1 keep), if a little small. --Deathphoenix 15:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid VfD. If your further researches do establish notability, you can always write a new article containing that info. - Mustafaa 16:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i agree with Mustafaa. --Striver 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

July 13, 2005

Hadiths connected with Mut'ah

This page's creator (User:Striver) informs me this page was speedied. Since I cannot access it, I do not know what the page's contents were, but I will make the assumption that they were similar to several other pages he has created. If that is in fact the case, the page most ceertainly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and ought to be restored. Denni☯ 23:30, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

Undelete there is no justification for deleting that on sight, it took me hours to make that article, my assupmtion is that somone did not like the views that where represented and desided to have it deleted on sight.

--Striver 00:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm a bit puzzled. The article Hadith's connected with Mut'ah still exists; is someone just confused by the incorrect apostrophe? It should be renamed, certainly (unless I'm missing some subtlety.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh man!

To bad there is no rewind button in real life, i have made a comple fool out of my self!

man... *Sad face*

-*going to find a hole to hide my head in*

--Striver 00:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Get your head out of that hole! On a 1 to 10 scale of gaffes, 10 being forgetting your wife's birthday and 1 being forgetting to lower the toilet seat, this one's about a one-half. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have redirected it for now to allay further confusion. Which title would be more appropriate? You should be able to move over my redirect if necessary. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 01:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Islamophilia

I would like this article to be undeleted, at least temporarily, in order to salvage its contents. The arguments for undeletion are:

• less than 55% of voters voted for deletion, most votes weere cast when the article was in its infancy. This is against Misplaced Pages policy, a 2/3 majority is required.
• the word islamophilia has been used by several influential people and publications (sources are in the article)
• the word describes a real phenomenon

For this reason:

• Undelete, at least temporary. --Germen 18:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, non-notable term.Heraclius 18:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This term has been used in several printed and internet publications, so it is a notable term. --Germen 13:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The majority of keep votes on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Islamophilia were unsigned and made by anonymous users. There is no indication that this was deleted incorrectly. --Allen3  18:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is an indication. The majority was slim and valid arguments were ignored. --Germen 13:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. A 25-4 delete vote is not a "slim majority" by any defintion of the word. Counting the parade of sockpuppets is flat-out dishonest. --Calton | Talk 14:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • What you called "sock puppets" were genuine votes of non-registered users. Calling anything which contradicts your POV dishonest is not a high-level discussion tactic.--Germen 15:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

An examination of the deletion policy shows that votes that are not signed, or are made anonymously, may not be considered valid by the closing admin. As the majority of the keep votes fall into this category, the number of valid keep votes is low compared to the number of such votes cast. While the term "sock puppet" is probably a little harsh the proper procedures appear to have been followed. --Allen3  17:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Only a few legitimate keep votes and over 20 legitimate delete votes. No error in process, thus it should not be undeleted. Carbonite | Talk 18:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Error in progress because Misplaced Pages policy was violated. See front. --Germen 13:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Which Misplaced Pages policy was violated? Carbonite | Talk 20:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid vfd - Tεxτurε 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Allen3 and Carbonite. --Deathphoenix 20:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is a (protected & disputed) article for Islamophobia. Seems reasonable to include an article on Islamophilia too. Arevich 20:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Votes for undeletion is about process, not content. The Islamophobia article has been around for a long time and several users mentioned its existence during the VfD. However, the consensus was still to delete Islamophilia. Carbonite | Talk 23:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus, there was a slim majority of just one or two votes. --Germen 13:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
      • That's wrong even if you count ALL the sockpuppets (29-25) and not even wrong if you don't (25-4). Why make claims that can be easily checked? --Calton | Talk 14:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Let it be four votes. There was no qualified 2/3 majority.--Germen 15:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - was deleted in proper vfd process. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 01:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleting without 2/3 majority is a proper vfd process? --Germen 16:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I can count only 3 keep votes that are acceptable under proper vfd guidelines. The deletion was justified. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I have checked Misplaced Pages policy, there is no proof for your statements. Unsigned votes are not invalid. There is also no proof the unsigned votes were sockpuppets. This means there was no rough consensus, as much less than 2/3 of voters agreed for deletion (the minimum required) and thus Misplaced Pages policy was violated to press a partisan POV. --Germen 09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - still a nonnotable neologism. - Mustafaa 16:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Islamophilia is a notable neologism as proven.
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD, invalid VfU. --Calton | Talk 14:07, July 17, 2005

(UTC)

• • Why? Motivate this. --Germen 15:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, votes that were discounted were done so properly. Dcarrano 17:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

July 12, 2005

Topological geometrodynamics and TGD

This is a complex topic in quantum mechanics; see . I'm concerned this article may have fallen on the wrong side of Misplaced Pages's anti-elitism, as described by Larry Sanger. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Real theory, real importance, real complicated. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 18:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Originally at Topological Geometrodynamics; deleted per Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Topological Geometrodynamics as original research. JRM · Talk 18:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  The majority voted against deletion. Why was it deleted? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 18:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  I never participated, but if I am to hazard a guess: that's probably because the majority was an army of anonymous voters who employed amazingly similar style, and who were never seen or heard of before or after they cast their votes. JRM · Talk 18:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  It should have been noted the anonymous voters came from diverse IP addresses, which means they were probably not sockpuppets, but researchers in related fields who were unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages.

  Indeed, further examination shows the votes came from Australia, Argentina, Indonesia, Uruguay, the Ukraine, Verizon, UUnet, and Shaw Cable. The anonymous editor with IP 137.111.13.34 (Australia) wrote this comment:

  I think this should be kept. Yes, it is the idea of one man. But he is a Professor. And I don't see anything wrong with including report of the work of individual academics, provided they are respected in their field as having some clue -- i.e. even if most other researchers think they are wrong, if their views are considered worthy of consideration by the scientific community, as opposed to quackery or psuedoscience, we should keep them.

  The IP address belongs to Macquarie University. Should Misplaced Pages ignore the votes of experts (who may have little time for editing) simply because they do not have registered usernames? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  I can legitimately crank out edits from dozens of IP addresses belonging to the Eindhoven University of Technology. Shall I be called an expert in any of the fields the university's researchers are active in? Or I could log out and you could trace my present IP as a static address from a Dutch ISP, does that mean I'm the equivalent of an AOLer with no expertise to call my own?

  Our policy allows admins to override zero-edit-history votes with dubious provenance like these exactly to avoid this sort of pointless discussion. You are not going to demonstrate these were "experts" since they provided no references or demonstration of validity whatsoever and you have no way of contacting these people, I am not going to demonstrate that at least some of these IPs were anonymous proxies at the time of voting since these are ferreted out and closed down at a healthy pace, so what's the point?
  I do not principally object to another round of VfD. But I'm not going to outright support it, in a case that appears so clear-cut to me. Even if all the votes were made by distinct individuals who genuinely cared about the topic (and let's assume they were, because the discussion of who is or isn't a sockpuppet usually doesn't go anywhere) this still doesn't mean their numerical advantage means the article is kept! I note that none of the keep votes (sorry, I mean "non-delete" votes, to copy the jargon used by the "experts") attempted to refute the original research argument by providing external references. All we get is personal assertions that the "individual academic" in question is "respected in field as having some clue" (such ringing endorsement), the old chestnut of "prejudice against the page" and people pointing out that at least one person (namely the originator) has written up publications on the theory. If all this is sufficient to establish notable scientific research these days, we are in trouble.
  Voting undelete would be saying that the administrator who closed out the VfD vote made a mistake in interpreting policy, or that the voters got insufficient opportunity to state their case in light of our policies. I honestly don't think that was the case. JRM · Talk 20:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  A problem here is that these people may have expected that saving the article would require no more than a vote to keep. To someone who lacked familiarity with Misplaced Pages's policies, it would appear that the vote to keep was going to succeed. Since nobody disagreed with their statements, they would likely have seen no reason to make a stronger argument.

  The Argentinian with the INTA (inta.gov.ar) IP seems to have been the only voter who noticed RickK's indication that anonymous votes would not be counted. He rightly objects to the process: if there are few people who know of a science topic, but they do not use Misplaced Pages, how are they to vote against the deletion of an article on the topic, lacking accounts prior to the vote? This is a Catch 22, and not how VfD should work. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  On the contrary, this is exactly how VfD should work. We do not need people to vote "against the deletion", we need people who provide objective arguments why an article is valid and should not be deleted. "I, Random Person, have heard of it" does not count and never should. By those merits, anyone who could personally rally enough people to support a vote could keep any article they like, inclusion guidelines or no—or, indeed, delete any article they like. This is why your vote is not guaranteed to count, and why it's in fact very likely not to count if you had zero prior contributions: if you've never heard of Misplaced Pages, how can you be expected to know what is and isn't appropriate? Are you going to tell me all those experts seemed to understand Misplaced Pages:No original research and successfully argued why it wasn't? JRM · Talk 07:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Please provide references to peer-reviewed literature. Dunc|☺ 18:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Although I object to this burden of proof, Pitk?nen's papers seem to have been reviewed by the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Eequor's feigned confusion at why this was deleted is almost amusing. Since when are anons ever counted in VfD votes? Especially near identical "please to enact the non-deletion of article" votes are cast. Surely not sockpuppets, but researchers in related fields "who were unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages", but who all just happened to search wikipedia for Topological geometrodynamics in the period of a few days. -R. fiend 19:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  It's reasonable that, upon being informed the article may be deleted, interested researchers might vote against its deletion. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Is there some weekly Topological geometrodynamics shindig these guys get together at to discuss where this topic is discussed online? Whereupon they all pledge to strive their utmost, using the Topological geometrodynamics-approved terminology "non-delete", to prevent its removal from all forums? -R. fiend 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Valid vfd. Gamaliel 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Note that the army of anons all chose "Not delete" rather than don't delete, do not delete, or keep. I conclude that they are all one and the same person, who has access to a number of different IPs Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  I think it's likely the multiple "not delete" votes were simply mimicking the first vote against deletion, which is to be expected if they were unfamiliar with VfD. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Nah there are some geinuine wikipedian keep votes, who unsurprisingly wrote "keep". Also the anons alternate between not-delete and non-delete, both of which are weird and unnatural. Plus if you read what they wrote they all have the same writing style, with English clearly not their first language although they all speak english pretty well. Definately the same person casting multiple votes. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  It's hard to believe Pitk?nen, a quantum physicist, would engage in such juvenile tactics. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Don't know - I don't know the man. Besides I never said it was him Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  A major problem with the sockpuppet idea is that, on one occasion, whomever it was must have hacked into Argentina's equivalent of NASA or a division of the United States Department of Defense. That's an awful long way to go just to prevent the deletion of an article about an obscure physics topic. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Oh I dunno, a misconfigured proxy posted on the web along with lists of hundreds of other open proxies looks like a possiblity to me. I know evidence when I see it staring me in the face. This was a valid vfd. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. It's the job of supporters familiar with the process to assist those unfamiliar with it and the VfD time period is ample for this. Sockpuppetry is always a judgement call on the part of the acting admin, and in this case I see no reason to question the admin's judgement. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD, discounting socks. --Deathphoenix 01:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Um...so I'm not knowledgable here, but I was surprised by the 877 google hits that this obscure topic turns up. Nevertheless, it is the original research of one man, and its inclusion on Misplaced Pages seems to have been written by himself, as the vfd for Matti Pitkänen seems to make clear. I have to classify that into the general vanity category. Interestingly enough, Matti Pitkänen himself seems to get about 739 google hits, mostly from websites that are making fun of him...that, in and of itself, might make him and his theory notable. If a single article covering both him and his theories were re-written at Matti Pitkänen, it might better survive a vfd today than it did the first time around, (assuming Pitkänen himself was not once again the primary author). In any case, the original vfd was valid. func(talk) 02:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I see no reason to overturn previous VfD. jni 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid VFD debate considering that the keep votes are all extremely similar and probaby from the same person. But R. Fiend, often I do count anonymous votes when I think they have been cast in good faith. The header on the VFD debate says that anonymous votes may be discounted, not that they will be discounted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: valid vfd, no new evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. ("Geometrodynamics" sounds like the study of the motion of compact cars.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. And why the hell has an admin recreated AND protected the page with no concensus? Kiand 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  Because the admin has temporarily undeleted the page. See the section above. The page will be re-deleted in time, don't get your knickers in a twist. JRM · Talk 07:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  Re-deleted. See? JRM · Talk 18:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nudity in The Simpsons

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons. As the closing admin points out, "the numeric vote is roughly a tie". Kappa 09:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, there was no consensus for deletion. I didn't vote keep on this one only because there were enough keep votes already!  Grue  11:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That'll learn ya! Always vote if you feel you have an opinion... -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 11:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I count 6 Keeps and only 5 deletes, I wasn't able to look at the article itself, however based on the number of votes there seem no readon why it should have been deleted. --Eliezer 11:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. VfDs aren't simple votes, and I think that the admin in this case read the situation right; there were a lot of weak keeps (including keeps for weak reasons, such as "This 'encyclopedia' has articles about plenty of other crap. Get rid of that, then come back to this", and "This is in the same boat as 'Buildings in (City Name)' or any other really specific article") and strong "deletes", and the article-creator's vote also surely counts heavily. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - there was no consensus for deletion. Weak keeps are still keep votes. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 11:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete'. Closing admins are correctly given a fair bit of latitude in interpreting debates, but they must remembered that whenever consensus is in doubt the article should be kept. - SimonP 12:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete since there was no consensus — but insist that this go back to VfD as per the VfU procedure. Especially important where the original VfD was a tie.-Splash 13:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mel has a good point (and I would have voted Delete as useless trivia), but if I were to have closed this vote, I would have closed it as No consensus. --Deathphoenix 13:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and return to VfD. BrandonYusufToropov 13:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Concur with Mel. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with Mel also. This is about consensus, not about counting votes. As such, I won't second guess the closing admin's decision. --Kbdank71 18:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What consensus are you talking about? No article should EVER be deleted with that many keep votes. Decisions such as this one turn VfD into farce. And as the closing admin was promoted less than week ago it's perfectly appropriate to question this, obviously incorrect, decision.  Grue  19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I read the discussion. I didn't just count the votes. If you have done so also and are comfortable with undeleting it, fine. I'm not. --Kbdank71 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I probably would have voted to delete, but it's obvious that there was no consensus. A Misplaced Pages article's original author has no ownership rights, and a closing admin's decision is far from sacrosanct. —Lifeisunfair 20:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I am the guy who closed this vfd. I apologize. I've been an admin all of 6 days and I got screamed at already. I admit it's my fault, but it means I won't be doing any vfds. I'll find something more non controversial to do. --Woohookitty 20:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to say that if you are easily phased by being accused of making controversial decisions, then VfD is not really the place to learn adminship. Saying that, you used your judgement, and someone disagrees with it - happens to me all the time. Don't let it stop you from doing what you want to do as an admin. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. VfD is not a simple up-or-down vote. --Carnildo 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would argue that that's why it's called Votes for deletion. If it was Discussion for deletion, or Debates to achieve mutually beneficial consensus for deletion, then fine. It's not, it's Votes for Deletion, thus it does come down to simple up-or-down voting. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Many people have pointed out the name is a misnomer. Regardless, "it is just that and nothing more because it's called that and nothing more" is not a particularly compelling argument for anything but a name change. VfD is not a simple up-or-down vote, if the deletion policy is anything to go by. It operates by "rough consensus", which is a terribly wishy-washy concept that happens to work out quite well quite often—but claiming it all boils down to voting is misleading to say the least. JRM · Talk 21:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    • • Well even if it's on rough consensus the article didn't even achieve that either. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not deleting anything on a whim of one admin either.  Grue  21:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelte and return to VFD - 6/5 isn't concensus. --Kiand 21:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't see rough consensus here. There should have been rough consensus. The article should be deleted. I hope that if it is voted for undeletion that it will receive consensus for deletion when it is relisted on VfD. But... the fact was that the original VfD did not show consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we are forgetting rule number 7 of WP:CSD: Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author. If it happens to be that the original page was only edited by User:CanadianCaesar, and since CanadianCaesar himself stated that "I regret it now" and asked for a delete, I find that the admin was not entirely without cause in his actions. Nevertheless, I have to confess that, were I an admin, I would have found no consensus. (so in the best spirit of sitting on the fence, I vote no vote). func(talk) 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Created by mistake" doesn't mean "later regretted creating." It means "didn't intend to create." Examples of this are a mistyped title, an inadvertent duplicate and a page created in an inappropriate namespace. —Lifeisunfair 02:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't see a consensus for deletion here. older≠wiser 03:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted at the creators request.--nixie 03:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I certainly hope that the Cunctator doesn't request the deletion of Misplaced Pages. ;-) —Lifeisunfair 03:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mel Etitis is wrong, the Guide to Votes for Deletion clearly says that "A weak vote has no lesser weight, when the discussion is closed, than any others. It reflects upon the voter and upon the rationale, not upon the vote. " Regarding the point about the author requesting deletion, I would only delete an article which the author says was created by mistake before a VFD debate says that the article should stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. No consensus for original vfd, and still no consensus here. As Francs2000 states above, "Weak keeps are still keep votes." Arevich 21:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. No consensus reached, though I understand Woohookitty's reasoning. Send this one back to VfD, where I'll actually remember to vote to delete it this time... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted please. It didn't really belong. CanadianCaesar 23:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that you're the original author, this simply isn't your decision to make. Out of curiosity, how long ago was this list created, and were you the sole contributor? —Lifeisunfair 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I know it's not my decision, but I'll support deletion. And no, I wasn't the only contributor, someone named Radiant added a section CanadianCaesar 01:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a significant factor, because Radiant may have invested a great deal of time and effort. —Lifeisunfair 02:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
        • That would be me. No, it wasn't much time and effort, I just added some bits of trivia that I happened to know. I kind of like the article but have not cast a vote on its VFD, nor will I do so here. Radiant_>|< 08:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and return to VfD. as BrandonYusufToropov sugested --Striver 00:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete for reasons already provided. —RaD Man (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete—we even have articles on Wall E. Weasel and Worker and Parasite! OK, so writing about nudity in The Simpsons seems kinda silly, and the notability is marginal, but it was a good article and The Simpsons are an important thing, deserving of detailed treatment. Everyking 09:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete While I won't argue that it's not an inane topic, it's hardly the silliest thing on Misplaced Pages. I was even going to add to the page tonight, having stumbled across it by chance some time back. Wyvern 10:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

July 11, 2005

ID eNTITY

ID eNTITY was deleted for being a nonsense page. In its final (and only) form, it was merely a plot summary of a manwha (Korean graphic novel). However, it was not nonsense; the page was a completely accurate descriptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_undeletion&action=history History of the manwha. Although short (there is only one graphic novel currently out, and it's more of an introduction to the characters than anything), it was still an actual article. If it becomes undeleted, I will expand on it, adding (at the very least), a character summary. I also promise to update it as new graphic novels are translated into English. Solomaxwell 05:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• If the page hasn't been protected against re-creation (which it hasn't) and you plan to not merely repost the deleted content but post a new article (or at least enough of a new article that no reasonable admin could conclude it was re-created deleted content), you should be bold and make the article. You don't need permission. I am about to be corrected if I am wrong... -Splash 05:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm wavering towards an undelete, but I don't have enough info to really vote on this. Can an admin provide a quick summary of the contents of this article before it was deleted? --Deathphoenix 14:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Full contents: 'ID eNTITY is a manwha about a young boy who is a master of a virtual reality computer game. After his character expired and he needed to renew it (a lengthy process), he decided to use a different character (using an identification card he found on the floor), instead. He then amuses himself by using his new, female character to talk to people with a whole new light. However, the original player wants her character back...', and the only contributor was 24.195.216.47. --cesarb 15:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to keep the old summary, but add things on, like character profile, possibly a description of the game that's played, important information like author and publisher, maybe a couple of others. It doesn't matter a great deal if it remains deleted, it just makes my job easier. Solomaxwell 16:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Thanks, cesarb (I should have just checked the deletion log, shouldn't I?). The article doesn't establish notability IMO, but I think that makes it subject to a VfD instead of a speedy. I'd like to see it undeleted and listed on VfD to see if it gets expanded and/or establishes notability. --Deathphoenix 21:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  The deletion log had just the first sentence and the beginning of the second one. --cesarb 21:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. I inquired with Hedley (the admin responsible for the deletion) and it turns out that he/she mistook the article for a vanity piece about a real-life person. Evidently, Hedley was unfamiliar with the word "manwha" (as I was, prior to reading this discussion), and therefore assumed that the text was "nonsense." —Lifeisunfair 19:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I was not familiar with the term "manwha". But, it read like nonsense also, and that needs to be addressed. I got the impression it was about a person who plays video games, who had to renew his character, only to have it stolen by somebody else. Now, thats CSD criteria. I'm not sure if the new criteria passed yet, but articles on a notable subject which read nonsensically can be speedied under it. Thats why a speedied it, and even if I was familiar with the term, I may of considered doing so. Hedley 21:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article began with the sentence "ID eNTITY is a manwha about a young boy who is a master of a virtual reality computer game." This was followed by a brief (but presumably accurate) plot summary, the syntax of which was fairly decent. No offense, but the author is not to blame for your false "impression." —Lifeisunfair 21:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages maintenance