Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:36, 10 September 2005 view sourceEncephalon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,729 editsm →[]: copy edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:45, 11 September 2005 view source Arcturus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,651 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 37:		Line 37:
	*Well, I Googled for the first bit of the text and some other random bits, and the only hits were WP mirrors (which share our licence). That doesn't mean it isn't only in print somewhere of course. If undeleted it needs a considerable neutralising as well as wfying. -] 17:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)		*Well, I Googled for the first bit of the text and some other random bits, and the only hits were WP mirrors (which share our licence). That doesn't mean it isn't only in print somewhere of course. If undeleted it needs a considerable neutralising as well as wfying. -] 17:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
	*If I understand correctly,		*If I understand correctly,
	**] wrote the article April 29th.		::] wrote the article April 29th.
	**] listed it on Copyvio July 13th, writing, "''Not sure about this one - looks like it could be a copyright infringement. At the very least it needs wikifying.''" It did not elicit any discussion on Cvio.		::] listed it on Copyvio July 13th, writing, "''Not sure about this one - looks like it could be a copyright infringement. At the very least it needs wikifying.''" It did not elicit any discussion on Cvio.
	**] delisted it from Cvio and deleted it on July 28th, writing "''listed as copyvio since July 13.''"		::] delisted it from Cvio and deleted it on July 28th, writing "''listed as copyvio since July 13.''"
	*From this sequence, it looks as if no one actually determined for certain that it was a Cvio; we're also not sure why Arcturus thought it was. He's still active, so I'm leaving him a note and a link to this page; he may remember a print source not available online that led him to believe this was cvio. Until such time as a definite determination of copyright violation has been made, however, we have no right to delete an editor's otherwise valid contribution to WP. Please '''undelete'''.—]]  17:32:34, 2005-09-10 (UTC)		:From this sequence, it looks as if no one actually determined for certain that it was a Cvio; we're also not sure why Arcturus thought it was. He's still active, so I'm leaving him a note and a link to this page; he may remember a print source not available online that led him to believe this was cvio. Until such time as a definite determination of copyright violation has been made, however, we have no right to delete an editor's otherwise valid contribution to WP. Please '''undelete'''.—]]  17:32:34, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
			*
			::Hello! I remember listing this article but I would need to see it again so that I can recall what I thought about it at the time. I probably listed it after doing a Google search on part of the text and finding an original (not Misplaced Pages copy) website. I'll commnet further when it's restored. Thanks. ] 19:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
			:::I have temporarily undeleted the article, so you can take a look at the history. --] 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I now recall this. It looks for all the world like a direct copy from a webpage (however, Google throws up nothing apart from mirror sites) or a scanned image from a book, though I do not know of any printed version. The statement at the end "Written by Kelly E. Rusinack with Lester Rodney" and the edit comment about it being an authorised biography add credence to the idea that it had been sourced from somewhere and may well be copyrighted. Such remarks are also very unusual in Misplaced Pages. How many cases are there of individuals "authorising" their biography on Misplaced Pages, I wonder. However, if the original writer is complaining about it being deleted, and can guarantee it's not copyrighted, then clearly it should be restored. ] has offered to wikify it. That, together with the "neutralisation" suggested by ], will make it more acceptable to Misplaced Pages. I suggest it's undeleted immediately and the original author informed. ] 09:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

	===September 9===		===September 9===
Line 59:		Line 63:
	*'''Undelete'''; I think ABCD must have just miscounted this one. ] 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)		*'''Undelete'''; I think ABCD must have just miscounted this one. ] 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', no consensus to delete. ] 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)		*'''Undelete''', no consensus to delete. ] 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
			*'''Undelete''' per ABCD.—]]  17:49:18, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

	===September 8===		===September 8===
Line 103:		Line 108:
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. An obvious joke – let's use some common sense here. Silliness is ''indeed'' a criterion for speedy deletion. Joke articles (or templates, in this case) are specified as ]. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 12:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)		*'''Keep Deleted'''. An obvious joke – let's use some common sense here. Silliness is ''indeed'' a criterion for speedy deletion. Joke articles (or templates, in this case) are specified as ]. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 12:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
	*What Splash said.—]]  19:38:38, 2005-09-07 (UTC)		*What Splash said.—]]  19:38:38, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

	===September 5===


	====]====
	Several months ago I made a short entry for the webcomic George Comics, and it was subsequently deleted. I do not dispute this initial deletion. That article was short and not very informative, and there were probably only 20 or so comics up when I originally submitted the article, so I understood its deletion. However, tonight I spent hours writing a good entry for George Comics, complete with a comic strip overview, character information and a drawing of the cast. Unfortunately, it was quickly the victim of a speedy deletion and placed on the protected deleted list, which I feel is unfair. The strip has been up for much longer now, it's got plenty of people reading it and linking to it, and I genuinely feel this would be a good Misplaced Pages article. Virtually everything I wrote about the strip was written specifically for the article; it was all meant as a means of information about the strip and not some form of promotion. It was a definite improvement over the first George Comics article I hastily submitted so many months ago; it was not a "substantially identical copy" by any means, and I move for its undeletion as it is a relevant article. - ] - 5 September 2005
	*'''Undelete and list at ]''', but only if the above summary is accurate. —] 07:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	**The original AFD had only two delete votes . Though, the main issue could be that since the person who is resubmmiting this article shares uses a user name with the comics in question. My suggestion is that if this is un-deleted and un-protected, other Wikiedians instead of George comics write the article, since people could see it as vanity. ] ] 07:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	***If an article describes a notable entity in a factual manner, the identity of its primary author is irrelevant (from a policy standpoint). While ] and other self-focused articles often fail to satisfy one or both of those criteria (and are frowned upon by some), they don't inherently violate any official rules. If the claim that this was not a substantially identical copy of the original article is accurate, it appears as though you erred by speedily deleting the page. —] 08:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	****Ok, I restored it and unprotected it. No whoever wants to start the AFD can go right ahead. ] ] 18:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Temporary undeletion''' to confirm or deny it's new existance seems fair. <s>Then we kill it with fire.</s> Reserving any judgments, of course, but it needn't go to AfD straight away. ^_^ - ]]] 08:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete''' because the new version is not a "A substantially identical copy" of the previously deleted article. However, immediately nominate it to AFD with a link to the prior discussion. Let the community decide again. ] ] 13:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete and AfD''' if it was not substantially identical, and it does not sound like it was. If it was substantially identical, keep it deleted. -] 13:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete'''. The versions seem substantially different enough to me. ] 17:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

	===September 4===
	====]====
	] has four delete-votes, one keep-vote, and one keep-vote by the article's creator who has ~20 edits. There is nevertheless a dispute about whether this is a consensus to delete, so I'm bringing it here for further input - on ] it was discussed to bring disputed closings here. ]]] 15:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
	*Well, Tony's criteria for counting someone's notvote in AfD is quite high. I believe it's "at least a month ''and'' at least 100 edits ''and'' a good proportion to article space", unless an editor is the page's principal author (I presume the nominator always gets to be counted on a similar principle). On those criteria, neither of the keep's would be discounted, since both had made significant changes to the article, and Sdedeo would be discounted. RJH's comment is hard to determine, but implies some satisfaction with a marketingectomy which later occured; it doesn't sound like an overt vote either way. That makes it 3d-2k, and no consensus. Personally, I ''would'' count Sdedeo's vote as well as both keeps. That's a knife-edge 4d-2k, and observing that at least two deleters viewed it as non-notable, and that was one of RJH's concerns, deletion would be reasonable. Even weakening the nominator's vote in light of the removal of the advertising content, there is still a case for deletion. -] 17:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	** I agree that a case could be made for deletion. But remember the ] ''if in doubt, don't delete''. There was certainly plenty of doubt in this case. I did discount one keep vote but did not discount any other. Closing VfDs is something of an art and no two people will arrive at the same result. 4d 2k is nowhere near consensus by my standard. The original call was keep, but since Radiant disputes it I've no objection to relisting on VfD. --]] 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

	* Radiant seems to have deleted this unilaterally, despite the fact that it was closed with a keep result for no consensus. Even without counting the originator's vote, this has only four votes to delete, 1 clear vote to keep, one vote to have the article "chopped back to a paragraph, if this company is at all notable" The latter vote was counted as a provisional vote to keep. I have no opinion on this, but only two voters claimed in the discussion that it wasn't a notable company, and the requested chopping back was apparently performed during discussion. I'd also take issue with Radiant's actions here. VFU is not the place to discuss deletion; that is done on VfD. I have no objections to reopening the VfD and accordingly I have done so. --]] 17:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*Actually, VFU is precisely the place to discuss whether a VFD was closed correctly, either way; see ] for the discussion on the matter. ]]] 20:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
	** Absolutely not. Deletion policy permits the unilaterial undeletion of such out-of-process deletions. They'll always end up on VfD where people can see them and edit them. --]] 23:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*Looks like a delete to me. '''Delete''', '''Keep deleted''', '''Delete again''', whichever is appropriate. --]] 22:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
	*Why was the article undeleted before the completion of this discussion? What the heck is going on? ] ] 23:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*????? The article is not deleted, but it links to an AfD discussion, but the AfD discussion claims to be closed and says I should not edit the page. ] ] 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*In any case: I vote '''Keep deleted''' on this page, '''Delete''' on the AfD discussion the page linked to five minutes ago, and '''Delete''' on the AfD discussion it links to now. Hopefully at least one of these three expression of opinion will count for something. Delete/restore wars are new to me and I can't say I think add much to the Wikipedian experience. ] ] 23:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	* I don't know how you got pointed at the wrong VfD--the article history shows no irregularities so it's possible that there may have been a caching problem. You can't vote "keep deleted" on a page that is undergoing a second VfD precisely because someone disagreed with the fact that it ''wasn't'' deleted. That would be silly. There are no delete/restore wars here. A page deleted out of process will be undeleted as a matter of policy. --]] 23:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	* '''Keep undeleted''' as out of process on this vfu, and then '''delete''' as advertising on its (new) afd. And may I suggest that even if you wish to ] of VfU to include disputes about whether a keep result is proper, at the same time you list it here isn't the way to go about it? —] ] 23:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Comment.''' As the outcome for this article seems clear, can we now take discussions of a more general nature to their talk pages? <br/> ]]] 03:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep undeleted''', and do not delete again without another AFD debate. I see four delete votes and two keep votes. The vote from the article's creator is in my view perfectly valid since it is highly unlikely that it was cast in bad faith. 4-2 is borderline, and since the keep voters gave more detailed ''explanations'' of their votes than the delete voters did, I think Tony's decision to call this a no consensus keep was the correct one. ] ] 07:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	* '''Keep undeleted''' until and unless it fails a second AfD debate. The closing admin was within reasonable bounds to make the call as a "no consensus" based on the then-current state of the discussion and the article. Two of the "delete" voters specifically objected to the advertising nature of the article. The article was edited during the discussion period to remove the most egregious "advertising" text. The two early voters did not return to the discussion to either amend or re-endorse their opinions after the edit. The deciding admin has a responsiblity to take edits and timing into account during the decision process about closing. ] ] 13:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	*What Sjakkalle said.—]]  19:05:29, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

	====]====
	Pretty well known in Dublin, I feel. ] 00:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. ]. Votes for undeletion is not about notability. --] 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', valid vfd. —] ] 00:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', valid vfd. -] 00:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. Valid VfD. IIRC, this was part of a batch of hoax articles. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 00:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
	*What they said.—] \| ]  04:03:53, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

	=== September 2 ===		=== September 2 ===
Line 185:		Line 148:
	*** Comment: You said "here is no process for an admin to transwiki by themselves and delete". Actually, that remains an unclear point. The old interpretation was that any transwiki'd article could be removed from the source Wikimedia project immediately. A transwiki was not really interpreted as a "deletion" because any editor could reverse the decision without special admin powers (by running the transwiki process in reverse). All content and attribution history is preserved within Wikimedia even if it's gone from one particular wiki-project. The people who generally favored that interpretation usually relied on the wording in the text at ] and argued that as a meta rule, it should have precedence over the individual project rules. Now, there is certainly room to interpretation and debate even over the language on the meta page. Add the recent debate over the CSD case and the current state of the rules for post-transwiki are very uncertain. Reasonable people could argue that the "old interpretation" still applies and does provide for a process to transwiki then immediately remove from the source project. Regardless, I still feel an undelete would be somewhat pointless because I see no possibility of it surviving the VfD discussion. An etymology is clearly lexical, not encyclopedic. ] ] 05:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)		*** Comment: You said "here is no process for an admin to transwiki by themselves and delete". Actually, that remains an unclear point. The old interpretation was that any transwiki'd article could be removed from the source Wikimedia project immediately. A transwiki was not really interpreted as a "deletion" because any editor could reverse the decision without special admin powers (by running the transwiki process in reverse). All content and attribution history is preserved within Wikimedia even if it's gone from one particular wiki-project. The people who generally favored that interpretation usually relied on the wording in the text at ] and argued that as a meta rule, it should have precedence over the individual project rules. Now, there is certainly room to interpretation and debate even over the language on the meta page. Add the recent debate over the CSD case and the current state of the rules for post-transwiki are very uncertain. Reasonable people could argue that the "old interpretation" still applies and does provide for a process to transwiki then immediately remove from the source project. Regardless, I still feel an undelete would be somewhat pointless because I see no possibility of it surviving the VfD discussion. An etymology is clearly lexical, not encyclopedic. ] ] 05:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*I'd say '''Wiktionary''' it, and find a suitable place to '''redirect''' the link on Misplaced Pages. ]]] 07:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)		*I'd say '''Wiktionary''' it, and find a suitable place to '''redirect''' the link on Misplaced Pages. ]]] 07:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
	Thanks for the W'tionary link. Apart from the matter of administrators' protocols, I take issue with the lexical/encyclopaedic division: the article treats of etymology, but it does have (I think) potential to attract edits relating to early modern Protestant colonialism and nationalism. On other points: I'm sure it was originally submitted to W'tionary, although I can't see it in the history; and in the process of being reconverted to W'tionary the block quote has lost its form and the footnotes now stretch over the horizon of the screen. If I may cast a vote in my own cause, I say '''undelete'''.		Thanks for the W'tionary link. Apart from the matter of administrators' protocols, I take issue with the lexical/encyclopaedic division: the article treats of etymology, but it does have (I think) potential to attract edits relating to early modern Protestant colonialism and nationalism. On other points: I'm sure it was originally submitted to W'tionary, although I can't see it in the history; and in the process of being reconverted to W'tionary the block quote has lost its form and the footnotes now stretch over the horizon of the screen. If I may cast a vote in my own cause, I say '''undelete'''.

	====]====
	{{undelete\|Patrick Haseldine}}

	This page was speedily deleted today at 12:29 without apparently any further comment or discussion on the talk page. It was not a re-post of the article that was Vfd'd on August 27: today's entry was a major revision, which merited more than simply a bureaucratic deletion. I should be grateful if consideration could be given to its speedy undeletion. ] 21:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Comment and request''' There was a decision to delete at ]. However if the latest version was in fact significantly different from the version up for deletion, in ways that mean that the arguments made on that page might not apply, then they should not have been speedied. The discussion was generally over notability, so a new article ought to indicate reasons or evidence for notability not discussed in that debate. Mind you, that debate had 4 deelte votes and 5 keep votes, but 4 of the keeps were from users not logged in, and I presume the clsoer discounted them. Had I seenm this debate while it was live, I'm not at all sure how I would have voted. Would an admin please compare the relevent versions and let us know just how different the most recently deelted version is? ] ] 22:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
	*:The version deleted today was substantially similar to the version deleted after the VfD vote. The last non-anon VfD vote was on the 20th, and there were edits to the article on the 25. I don't see any major differences between the verison that was listed for VfD, the version that was deleted on the 26th, and the version that was deleted on the 31st. --] 22:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - As far as I can tell it is the '''same identical article''' that was voted for deletion. Further comparison shows some paraphrasing within some sentences but essentially the same content and almost in the exact same order. - ]]] 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Keep deleted'''. If it was substantially identical, that's good enough for me since the VfD was fine. -] 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)</s>
	*'''Undelete and AfD'''. Having read both versions, I don't really think there's a whole lot between them. ''But'' the CSD has the emphasis on "substantially identical" not "substantially different", and I think the differences are enough to not quite make it, although I can understand why this was speedied. It should return to AfD however. -] 13:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' an interesting story and seems notable. I'm surprised it was VfDed. But I see no evidence that the deletion was improper. ] 22:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Speedy deletion was proper. --]<font color="#008000">]</font> 01:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - Opening paragraph of latest version is '''new'''; paras 2, 3 and 4 are essentially the same as the original VfDed article; but, paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 are '''completely new''', with plenty of factual information demonstrating '''notability''' of article's subject.] 10:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', yes it's got new material, but no it's still not notable. --]] 10:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
	*There is clearly disagreement here about whether the new version was a recreation, or if it contains some new information, not present at the VFD debate, which establishes notability. I have therefore temporarily undeleted and protected the article. Here is the and the . I have not read through them, but I may vote after doing so. ] ] 10:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Having read the two versions, I see a crucial difference between them. The first version contained letters to newspapers, and made no real mention that he had done anything else than that: write letters with conspiracy theories and spout those theories in the media. The second version however points out that Haseldine had 1) prepared dossiers to the Lord Advocate in the Lockerbie bombing case, and 2) mentions his different political campaigns. That means that I don't think that the second version is a recreation, it should get another VFD (or AFD?) debate, and I think it has a fairly good chance of surviving it. ] ] 11:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' as per ]. I agree that there is a substantial difference between the two versions. I suspect that I would nmot have voted to VfD the first version, but that is really not relevant -- this is about process. ] ] 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*Detailed comparison from :
	**The versions (22214278 and 21813877) detailed in this comparison are incorrect. The versions that ] actually temporarily undeleted were: first deleted version and second deleted version . The following paragraph by paragraph comments that are based on the incorrect comparison, and which are likely to have prejudiced some ''keep deleted'' votes, must therefore also be incorrect:] 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	***You - your small edit is not as big a difference as you make it sound. Add your edit to this comparison and it does not change. - ]]] 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	****Regretably, you persist in comparing two edits of the same deleted version. Please look at ]'s first deleted version and the second deleted version above, and you will see that your posts have consistently been in error.] 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	**Para 1 - Both indicate dismissal for disagreement over policy. Later version adds apartheid reference. (from para 4 in original)
	**Para 2 - Paraphrased and spelling corrected but content is identical for each sentence.
	**Para 3 - Paraphrased and one sentenced restated completely - content is identical.
	**Para 4+5 - These two in the original are combined into a single paragraph in new with some rephrasing - content is identical
	**Para 6-9 - The content is more different down toward the bottom but rewriting the same facts. Nothing substantive has changed about the content.
	**The above comments - based on a false comparison - should be ignored.] 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	***Paras 6-9 of the original become paras 5-8 of the new. I agree that the first sentence of the new para 5 is restated but, since the remainder of para 5, all of para 6, all of para 7 and all except the final sentence of para 8 '''is''' substantively new content compared with the VfDed version, disagree with the above comparison.] 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*Above it is argued that the notability of the subject has been enhanced. It has not. Just because someone rewrites and paraphrases does not mean the previous VfD is no longer valid. - ]]] 14:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	**Because half the content of the new article is substantively different (not rewritten or paraphrased) from the VfDed version, and the subject's notability thereby enhanced, the case for undeletion is very much strengthened.] 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	***I disagree that it is different. Can you make your case? What new facts did you find? What percentage of the article content is the same? I'd say about 95% or more. - ]]] 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	**** The case is well made by the Administrator above who says: "The second version however points out that Haseldine had 1) prepared dossiers to the Lord Advocate in the Lockerbie bombing case, and 2) mentions his different political campaigns. That means that I don't think the second version is a recreation..." I'd say that about 95% of paras 5-8 in the the second version is new facts. Sorry to have to disagree with you.] 18:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*****Don't apologize for making good points. I don't think they change my opinion, however. The dossiers addition consists only of two sentences listing who he gave them to and his political campaigns '''in local politics''' do not increase his notability. - ]]] 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	******That is, of course, your opinion - interesting though it is. What will be more interesting is how many further undeletion votes there are - and any argumentation they adduce. Thank you for your contribution to the debate.] 20:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. No substantial changes. --] 21:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	**] - above - says there are ''substantial differences'': whose opinion should prevail?] 22:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	***You - your small edit is not as big a difference as you make it sound. Add your edit to this comparison and it does not change. - ]]] 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	****Regretably, you persist in comparing two edits of the same deleted version. Please look at ]'s first deleted version and the second deleted version above, and you will see that your posts have consistently been in error.] 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', substantial enough differences that this was not a speedy. ] ] 03:05, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' --] (]) 07:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', invalid speedy. —] (]) 07:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. ] ] 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Not a valid speedy candidate. ] 11:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
	* VfU votes started 31 August 2005. Undelete now?] 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Article has been undeleted and is currently listed on AFD at ].'''. ] ] 06:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

	===August 30===
	====]====
	{{undelete\|Launie Anderssohn}}

	hello this is in accordance with laune anderssohn. i play in the band and have been playing with a notable rock band, the dears who are hugely successfull in not only north america but europe as well, playing to crowds of over 100 000 people at festivals, www.thedears.org for any info on validity. this is a notable group people, we are a band making waves and spreading rapidly, yet it seems the dears factor, the keep posts, the 2 countrieds toured, the three re
	cords, the 800 plus hits on google, the records in radio stations across canada dont seem to matter in the voting process even thoughwe met all the criteria for being kept. this bearcat fellow does not seem to have any notability under his belt. yet he is still on this site, we are a hard working ground breaking band that has been deleted for what i believe is more the content of our music than the actual suggested reasons. please consider us for undeletion (] 04:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC))thank you
	--] 04:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
	:I'm not exactly clear on which article you're requesting be considered for undeletion, but being associated with a notable band doesn't automatically make your band notable. Have a look at ] for some reasonable guidelines on what is and isn't considered notable by many.
	:It should be noted that there isn't a notability requirement for working on wikipedia, or else we'd have very few contributors left. --]] 04:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
	:'''Keep deleted''' Hello, 65.94.191.240. Just so you know, I voted against your article, and I've never heard your music, therefore, I, at least, wasn't voting against the content of your music, I just thought the article didn't belong in Misplaced Pages. I think that that's true with the other voters as well: I highly doubt that in an encyclopedia with articles on a number of extremely contentious subjects your independent band was deleted because of your songs' content. Just see the ] and you'll immediately get other reasons. As for getting it undeleted, you might consider getting yourself a username and using grammatically correct, punctuated sentences which begin with capitals, which will almost certainly give your opinions more weight.

	:A (partial) case against the article as I see it:
	:#It didn't have any evidence of notability on it except for your connection to the Dears (there was no mention of any tours, although that was brought up in the VfD itself, and whether or not the Dears were notable enough was contested, including by me).
	:#From what I can see on , you havn't even signed a real record contract and are selling records out of a local record shop, Le Subalterne.
	:#You're not listed on Allmusic.com.
	:#The article didn't say that you toured, if you indeed did (it was mentioned in the VfD debate, however).
	:#The VfD was heavily sockpuppeted, which in and of itself isn't a case, but it didn't help one bit.
	:I think it speaks for itself, really. I would suggest that you ''read the VfD debate'' and stop saying that people are against you because they don't like what you have to say, accept it, get really famous, then come back here and write an article about it. But ''please'' remember that WP is not the place to advertise your band, it's an encyclopedia. --] \| ] 05:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' The Launie Anderssohn article was deleted despite furfilling at least one, and arguably two, of the criteria on ]; see ]. The debate centered on weather ] should be considered "extremely notable" or just plain "notable". What I think was ignored was that Launie Anderssohn has toured two countries, and should be considered notable on that basis. ] 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Valid VfD, sockpuppet-supported. ] 08:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Valid VfD - ]]] 14:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
	* Keep deleted. The claim that they "toured two countries" was never substantiated despite that statement being challenged early in the discussion. The closing admin was within reasonable bounds to discount that claim. ] ] 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''': The decision to segregate the accused "sockpuppet" comments was probably a mistake. Comments from new users may be noted as such but an overly hostile reaction to them tends to turn the discussion into a flamewar. The lesson for next time is that it might be better to quietly note the new user's contribution history and trust that the closing admin will weight the comment(s) appropriately. ] ]
	*'''Keep deleted''', valid VfD. I agree with Rossami's comment — ] is quite clear that all that is necessary is to tag them with "this users first edit" or some such. If I had spotted the segregation, I'd have gotten rid of it. -] 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Procedure was correctly followed. ]] 01:39, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', process was followed correctly. It is worth noting that WP:MUSIC establishes ''guidelines'' rather than hard and fast ''rules''—some bands or artists who meet one or two of the WP:MUSIC criteria may still be judged insufficiently notable through VfD, and I imagine that there are circumstances under which artists who fail to meet any of the criteria might still be retained. ](]) 23:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''KD''' per Rossami.—] \| ]  09:57:10, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' per the original VfD. ] 17:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

	===August 29===



	====]====
	{{undelete\|The Flowers of Romance (band 2)}} ''See also ].''

	I believe this should have gone through the ] process rather than being speedily deleted outright. While the subject may be guilty of perpetrating a hoax and using Misplaced Pages for self-promotion, I'm not sure that made this article a candidate for speedy deletion. There were Misplaced Pages articles in fifty-seven languages (), but note that there was at least an effort to keep the facts straight in the English version. '''Restore.''' -- ] ] 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. We have to vote on whether or not we should keep a hoax article? This is a no brainer. ] 20:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. If it's an ''established'' hoax, why waste VfD time with it? What would be achieved? There might be no CSD for it, but there is also the application of common sense. If it's not a hoax, just a nn band, then it should go to VfD. -] 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
	**'''Comment:''' Agree that this is an '''nn''' issue. It is a band of questionable notability that uses falsehoods as part of its publicity. (But I'm not convinced that the band does not exist at all even if they're poseurs or liars.) This makes it an article ''about'' a hoax, but the article itself isn't necessarily a hoax. We wouldn't delete ] or ] because those subjects were not forthright, -- ] ] 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted.''' Vandalism is a valid CSD. Hoaxes are vandalism. Village Pump article cited by sysop gives more than sufficient reason for judging the article to be a hoax and nobody has seriously suggested that it isn't. It's a good judgement call by the sysop. This is just a hoax. It's not an '''article about''' a '''notable''' hoax, so let's not go down ''that'' path. ] ] 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
	** '''Abstain''' but I disagree with the claim that this was a valid speedy-deletion. Hoaxes are a subtle form of vandalism but they are explicitly '''not''' speedy-deletion candidates. As individuals, we have a very poor track record of separating out the real hoaxes from the obscure but real topics. See ] for a few examples where the nominator thought the article was a hoax but was later proven wrong. If they had been speedy-deleted, they would been lost without review. Some are such obscure topics that we might not have gotten them back and the encyclopedia would have been poorer. As a ''community'', however, we are quite good at identifying hoaxes. That's what the full VfD process does well. The CSD case for vandalism is supposed to be restricted to obvious vandalism. Deletion as a hoax should never be done on a single opinion and does not qualify for the CSD case. Note: I am voting "abstain" because I think that the original speedy-deletion was in error but that sufficient evidence has been presented ''here'' to confirm that this is a hoax and that it would fail a full VfD discussion. ] ] 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', hoax, and not a notable one. ] 06:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Abstain'''. Thank you, Rossami, for bringing up a number of points which have irked me in dealing with speedy and VfD. I think it needs to be made more clear (don't ask me how) what constitutes an appropriate candidate for a speedy delete and what must go to VfD. The guidelines appear to be being ignored, for the most part. As far as this item goes, I believe it should have gone to VfD, and it would have failed. ]] 01:46, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Hoaxes are not CSD candadites, see ] and ]'s comments above. Let it go to VfD (or AfD or whatever the name is by the time it gets undeleted) for a full exposure. ] ] 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. This issue was discussed at ], and this article is a recreation and as such, speediable. ]]] 07:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
	** This new evidence certainly changes the discussion but I'm not yet sure how. The conclusion of the prior VfD discussion was "redirect", not a straight "delete". The is still in place. While I would agree that the prior VfD discussion is evidence that the community did not want an independent article on this topic, I'm not sure that it strictly qualified under the speedy case. ] ] 19:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
	***That vfd in fact has unanimous votes to delete (7d, 0k). So I think it's reasonable to infer that the "(band 2)" article should be kept deleted. Given its strangely spelled title I see no point in a redirect. ]]] 22:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
	**** For clarification, you are arguing that the speedy is justified because the first VfD was incorrectly closed? ] ]
	*****I have no objection to that VFD. It had an obvious consensus for the removal of the information, and that's precisely what happened (deleting, blanking and converting to redirect all mean removing the information). So logically I consider this a recreation. I have no objection to making this a redirect, but it would be a rather pointless one. The point is that 1) it has been discussed, 2) consensus wants it gone, and 3) the creator forked it anyway. ]]] 09:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

	===August 25===


	====]====
	{{undelete\|Template: Infobox SoftwareProduct}}

	I was shocked to find the template deleted while I was continuing discussions with the individual (minghong) that requested deletion within the day of creation of the template. Minghong had made only 1 comment compared to the many I have sent for him to comment on and used the false accusation of this template being a 'fork' of his own while looking at the template itself clearly shows otherwise (both templates displayed a varying level of information in a non-repetitive format). I have yet to see any real basis to his claims and he certainly doesn't want to give any -- as shown in my comments to which he has not responded and even to his own user talk page. Within the past few days I have placed a comment in his template, Infobox Software, and still have yet to see any sort of response (in addition to several comments I have made in the previous weeks). As far as I knew at the time only Minghong was requesting it's deletion and not that it was added to a 'delete list' that someone would eventually, without any attempt at consulting both parties, would delete.

	I find this quite disturbing that the article would be deleted without Minghong producing any true evidence that the template was a 'fork' of his own or even taking the time to find such evidence. Had I known that the deletion was circulated at additional places I would have made my case but I was not aware of such existence and equally due to the lack of response by Minghong himself. I would request undeletion at least until I can clearly make my case for the template. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. ] {{timestamp}}

	*'''Keep deleted''' - It spent 15 days on ] with only a supporting "delete" vote. valid deletion. As for making your case, this is now the forum to develop a consensus to undelete it. - ]]] 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

	:Thank you, the purpose of the template, ] was to show a clearer way (by usage of terminology in the template that is equated better to both development formats, essentially so that ] could better apply to both closed-source and open-source applications with its detailed information. If Minghong is going to complain about 'two templates that serve similiar purposes' why then does he not complain about ]?? Within the day of first formulation user, Minghong, had simply launched accusations with no intent of knowing if his accusations were correct or not and immediately rid any usage (when the pages it was applied to clearly had no infobox in place until I placed the box on the pages as a demonstration), and without any consultation he immediately requested deletion. Since then he has made only one comment which comes across as a form of 'hasty anger'. Nothing against Minghong himself, mind you, but the process and haste in which he 'rushed' for things to be done shows he had no intention for knowing the intent of someone else. You could say I should post a response to his template I created, and before the template was deleted I did -- and I still have no response from him.

	:Considering Minghong's process in this matter for a template he did not create, how much more rushed would he be if I either placed a comment in his talk box or changed the template myself (in fact, he still hasn't responded to any of my recent coments)?! Additionally he didn't give me 'due notice' as mentioned in ] for listing a TFD. I'm saddened by his display of unprofessionalism in this matter and clearly respond to say that the template I made was in no way meant to undermine his but to help improve his own. Thanks for your consideration. ] 10:27, 2005 August 26 (GMT)

	:*The nomination for deletion occurred on August 9th and the tag was placed on the template itself. You gave a summary of "proposed tfd holds no basis, pending discussion" on the same day indicating that you were aware of the TfD nomination. What makes you think you were not given "due notice" of the nomination for deletion? - ]]] 16:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

	::I am stating in terms of where this 'discussion' had occured was not given notice to me and essentially he had given me no room for a discussion with him (his deletion request was on the same day he accused but he allowed no discussion, isn't that against Misplaced Pages policy?), have you also considered his argument of 'similiar' templates when there are already two software templates? ] 10:55, August 26 (GMT)

	:::The correct place to discuss the nomination was on TfD. Just as an article deletion is discussed on VfD. Policy doesn't require the nominator to talk to you at all. You're not making your case to the nominator but to the other voters just as you should here. - ]]] 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

	*'''Keep deleted''', 2 delete and 1 keep seems reasonable to close as delete. ] ] 15:20, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

	*'''Undelete'''. Seems worthy of existing and quite useful.] 17:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

	*'''Undelete'''. This template in no way competes with any other software template but holds value in showing another way information can be handled within said templates. ] September 5.

	*'''Undelete''' - I peeked at it through the undeletion system, and I see no reason for it to have been deleted. Looks like a nice template. --<span style="color:red">]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></span> 03:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

	====]====
	{{undelete\|University of Washington Police Department}}

	*VfD was no consensus. See ]. WP:NOT a democracy. By the way ] is a great guy and I got nothing against him. ] 00:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and optionally tag for a merge. --] (]) 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', and I originally voted to delete the article. The reasoning given sounds like too much personal reasoning over whether the article should stay or go — that's for the VfD discussion rather than the closing admin. The reasoning implies discounting the merge vote, but even that would give 5d-3k which is a little low given that the possibly-discounted vote gave the option to interpret it as a keep. -] 01:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	**I'm happy for my vote to be interpreted as a '''retain the redirect that is now there'''. -] 23:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' the police dept is already mentioned in the ] article in sufficient detail. --] 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	*As per TimPope; I've put a redirect here to the University of Washington. ]]] 06:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
	* This was a difficult judgment call. I considered running it back through VfD again but I've seen very few of those turn out to be useful. In the end, I decided that it was better to make a call and risk having it reversed than to leave this article in limbo. I made the call the way I did mostly so that the decision would be consistent with other VfD decisions about local police departments (which, from what I could see, have been universally "delete" decisions). Even I felt that was not a great argument since we all know that "Misplaced Pages is inconsistent". By the way, my personal opinion on the article was "weak delete as redundant" which would have taken the strict votecount to 6-4. Strict votecounting, however, is bad. Whoever makes this decision should always weigh the comments much more heavily than mere "votes". '''Abstain'''. ] ] 13:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. Seems to be a legit judgement call. ] 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

	*'''Keep deleted'''. A legit call, and it would be a bad precedent to set to start second-guessing reasonable decisions. ]] 00:00, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. I was thinking case-by-case. Plus what if some of UWPD was merged to UW? Then we'd be breaking the GFDL. My argument is that he made Misplaced Pages a democracy, rather than if the article should exist. ] 02:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. VfD result looks like a valid judgement call. --] 23:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

	===August 22===


	====]====
	{{undelete\|List of Japanese given names}}

	Hello. ] was recently deleted by {{user-c\|Lucky 6.9}} after being transwikied without consensus. The page was placed in the transwiki queue with a minority of the VFD votes to be for transwikification. See ]. The transwiki template was quickly removed from the page and comments were made on the talk page (now not viewable) that the transwiki decision was made without consensus. However, it was not known where the transwikification queue was, and the page was eventually transwikied and deleted. When ] about the deletion of the page, Lucky 6.9 confused it with another page, indicating that this deletion was not considered in light of the above. Please consider restoring this page, it was not deleted with the proper procedure. Thanks. --] (]) 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

	*'''Undelete''' as per above. --] (]) 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', valid vfd. —] ] 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	**Hi, please explain how the VFD result was valid without a consensus. Thanks. --] (]) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	***Because it was determined to be a transwiki by the closing administrator. —] ] 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	****If that is the policy, the policy sucks. A closing admin can ignore the majority of the votes? Very undemocratic. What is the point of voting if it is ultimately up to the whim of the admin? --] (]) 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*****That is a very good question. The problem is that the deletion system is inherently broken and biased depending on who closes what, but we have been unable to come up with anything better. ]]] 07:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
	***** Please go read the ] again. Despite the unfortunate name, "Votes for deletion" is not about "voting" at all. ]. Closing admins are not merely allowed but are actually ''required'' to evaluate and weigh the evidence, comments and policy when making their decision. An admin who is merely "vote-counting" is failing to do his/her job. ] ]
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Just look at the edit history: . This has been created and deleted 114 times as vandalism. The total content of the last incarnation: "Brad." Of course, if someone was ready, willing and able to create a real article under this title, by all means unprotect it. For now, it's saving us wasted time leaving it locked out IMO. - ] 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	**Unless it's showing you something completely different from what it's showing me, it's only been recreated and redeleted twice. (And have non-administrators always been able to see deleted history via Special:Undelete/whatever links? Keen.) —] ] 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	***This is news to me. Is this a new feature to Wikimedia? Lucky 6.9, sorry, it seems you were not involved in the transwiki at all. I should have directed my comments to {{user-c\|Dmcdevit}}. BTW, there are 100+ valid edits to an article there before some idiot came in and put "brad". Thanks. --] (]) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	****No, there weren't 100+ valid edits to the article when someone came in and put "brad". The article had already been deleted. --] 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*****Oh, I see, you are correct, that happened on Aug 18th, after the Aug 17th transwiki deletion. I had expected the two lists to be chronological when considered together. --] (]) 18:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	***(edit conflict) I see 114 ''deleted edits'' and 3 ''deletions''. Version before last deletion is nothing more than "<nowiki>{{nonsense}}brad</nowiki>" (or something like that, we cannot see the source code of deleted pages). The last two deletions are of vandalism; the first deletion is of the real content, points to the VfD as the reason, and the one who did it is ''not'' ], but ]. --] 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' --] (]) 18:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*Undeleted. Is this still a transwiki candidate? - ] 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	**This was grossly out of process. Kindly read the ] before taking such measures. —] ] 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	**The article is now a candidate for speedy deletion because of the unusual undeletion. I suggest that people continue to vote as normal and we can resolve the final state of the article after voting is completed. --] (]) 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*All right, already. It's gone again. I refuse to get bent out of shape over this. - ] 22:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	* Took me a while to work out how to go on this one. On one hand it was legitimately closed and transwikied, and ] now embraces speedying of this class of article. On the other hand the closer's discussion mentions that there was a clear keep vote. He decided to transwiki apparently because some (most?) of the keep voters mentioned this as a possibility. my instincts are that this article is perfectly encyclopedic, because I'd find it personally useful I'm going to sway in the direction of ''undelete'' and '''vfd'''. If it's really that useful it should have no problem getting enough keep votes this time. --]] 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per nominator. Based on the closer's comments (and count of the vote) it appears that transwiki was the outcome of ] by the administrator, not the result of the voting. ] ] 07:29, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
	*'''KD and replace with soft redirect''', it's been clearly established (] and ]) that articles on names should go in Wiktionary rather than here. ]]] 07:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep transwikied'''. I think Rossami's judgment was sound. ] ] 13:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
	*Hm. I'm truly sorry that it looks like this whole thing was my fault, and I only caught wind of it now, when I just left town (in a hotel computer now). Well, I agree with Rossami's assessment of a transwiki. As in, many people believe it should be at Wiktionary. A transwiki (outside of VFD) is like a merge, it can be done at the editor's discretion and with little caution. And before the new CSD (which is when it was VFD'd and and closed), there would have been no problem with closing as a "keep, no consensus, and might as well transwiki while we're at it" without any fear of ambiguity. However, that put it in the tranwiki queue, where I found it (after the new CSD). I transwikied it and, as is normal procedure, speedy deleted the article. I think I didn't read the VFD or Rossami's explanation (can't remember, but it was my fault), because it's fairly obvious that there's not really a strong delete consensus. I think that in the interest of consensus, it should be '''undeleted''' and '''relisted on VFD''' to try to find a consensus. I agree with the delete per WINAD sentiment, but I do think this was not what consensus revealed the first time. ]·] 03:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
	* As the closer in question, I am going to '''abstain''' from voting here but I should explain that at the time this decision was made, a "transwiki" decision was a form of "keep" - just not a "keep in Misplaced Pages". Articles were to be transwiki'd (an action which can be done or undone by any editor without loss of attribution history) and then routinely deleted from the source Wikimedia project. We did not then have a requirement to explicitly close a decision as "transwiki ''and'' delete" from the source. Closing as "no consensus but we're still going to get it out of Misplaced Pages" was acceptable as long as the content and attribution history were preserved in one of the Wikimedia projects. The interpretation of transwiki has since become more confused but ] acted in accordance with the established practice of the time. ] ] 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep transwikied'''. Korath worded my feelings perfectly on the VFD. ''Transwiki. Wiktionary has an appendix for given names. —Korath (Talk) 20:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)''. Our ] article can link to the Wiktionary appendix. - ]\|] 12:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep transwikied'''. As the compiler/maintainer of the largest free online collection of Japanese names on the planet (see and ), I don't think there is much place in Misplaced Pages for a article with a selection of names. Better to have the ] entry and link/point to a real collection. --] 23:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:45, 11 September 2005

Shortcut

]

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
{{copyvio}}Copyvios (howto · log) {{subst:ffd}}Files (log) {{subst:rfd}}Redirects (howto · log) {{subst:mfd}}Miscellany (howto · log) {{delrev}}Deletion review
Articles (howto · log)
{{subst:relist}} · {{subst:prod\|why}} {{subst:afd}} · {{subst:prod blp}}
Templates (howto · log)
{{subst:tfd\|template}} {{subst:tfd2\|template\|why}} {{tfdnotice}}
Categories (howto · log)
{{subst:cfd}} · {{subst:cfdnotice}} {{subst:cfm}} · {{subst:cfm-speedy}} {{subst:cfr}} · {{subst:cfr-speedy}} {{cfl}}
Mergers
{{merge}} {{merge to}} · {{merge from}} {{merging}} · {{afd-mergeto}} {{afd-merge from}}
Page moves
{{subst:requested move\|Newname}}
Speedy
{{db-author}} · {{db-web}} {{db-nonsense}} · {{db-test}} {{db-nocontext}} · {{db-empty}} {{db-attack}} · {{db-catempty}} {{db-band}} · {{db-banned}} {{db-person}} · {{db-notenglish}} {{db-copyvio}} · {{db-repost}} {{db-vandalism}} · {{db-talk}} {{db-spam}} · {{db-nocontent}} {{db-copypaste}} · {{db-filecopyvio}} {{db-animal}} · {{db-multiple}} {{salt}} All speedy templates
Unfree files
{{subst:ffd}} {{subst:nsd}} · {{subst:nld}} {{subst:nrd}} · {{subst:rfu}} {{subst:orfud}} · {{subst:orfur}}
Transwiki (howto · log)
{{Copy to Wikibooks}} {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} {{Copy to Wikiquote}} {{Copy to Wikisource}} {{Copy to Wikiversity}} {{Copy to Wikivoyage}} All transwiki templates
v t e

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.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. You don't have to get the stub undeleted, and as long as your new version has content it should not be redeleted. If it is, then you should list it here.

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:

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.
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.

Temporary undeletion

Votes for undeletion

September 10

Lester Rodney

Someone claiming to be the original author left a complaint on the Help Desk about this being deleted; I looked into the matter. Tagged as a possible copyvio in July, listed for two weeks with no-one saying anything, then deleted (it was an original textdump); see Special:Undelete/Lester Rodney, and for the WP:CV lack of discussion. From what he's said it doesn't seem to have been a copyvio - though I can understand why it got tagged as one - and is probably worth resurrecting, though I don't know what the policy for undeleting suspected copyvios is. I'm willing to wikify the article, if it's recovered. I've pointed the user to this page. Shimgray 14:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I Googled for the first bit of the text and some other random bits, and the only hits were WP mirrors (which share our licence). That doesn't mean it isn't only in print somewhere of course. If undeleted it needs a considerable neutralising as well as wfying. -Splash 17:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
If I understand correctly,

172.171.234.227 wrote the article April 29th.

User:Arcturus listed it on Copyvio July 13th, writing, "Not sure about this one - looks like it could be a copyright infringement. At the very least it needs wikifying." It did not elicit any discussion on Cvio.

RedWolf delisted it from Cvio and deleted it on July 28th, writing "listed as copyvio since July 13."

From this sequence, it looks as if no one actually determined for certain that it was a Cvio; we're also not sure why Arcturus thought it was. He's still active, so I'm leaving him a note and a link to this page; he may remember a print source not available online that led him to believe this was cvio. Until such time as a definite determination of copyright violation has been made, however, we have no right to delete an editor's otherwise valid contribution to WP. Please undelete.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 17:32:34, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Hello! I remember listing this article but I would need to see it again so that I can recall what I thought about it at the time. I probably listed it after doing a Google search on part of the text and finding an original (not Misplaced Pages copy) website. I'll commnet further when it's restored. Thanks. Arcturus 19:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have temporarily undeleted the article, so you can take a look at the history. --cesarb 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I now recall this. It looks for all the world like a direct copy from a webpage (however, Google throws up nothing apart from mirror sites) or a scanned image from a book, though I do not know of any printed version. The statement at the end "Written by Kelly E. Rusinack with Lester Rodney" and the edit comment about it being an authorised biography add credence to the idea that it had been sourced from somewhere and may well be copyrighted. Such remarks are also very unusual in Misplaced Pages. How many cases are there of individuals "authorising" their biography on Misplaced Pages, I wonder. However, if the original writer is complaining about it being deleted, and can guarantee it's not copyrighted, then clearly it should be restored. Shimgray has offered to wikify it. That, together with the "neutralisation" suggested by Splash, will make it more acceptable to Misplaced Pages. I suggest it's undeleted immediately and the original author informed. Arcturus 09:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

September 9

Gary Takes a Bath

Consensus was to merge or keep, not delete. --SPUI (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Undelete. I agree, I'm all for admins making judgment calls while closing VFD debates, but calling a "delete" result when many more than half the users wanted it merged or kept outright doesn't seem right. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete I count this as 7 Merge / 4 Keep (one of whom said "or merge" and one who said "do not merge) / 4 Delete. I don't see how that is a consensus to delete. It might be called a merge consensus, or a non-consensus, default to keep, with a suggestion that the mergists do so on their own. Unless lots of the votes were dioscounted for some reason (but there was no mention made of this) I don't see how the result was arrived at. (Mind you i would probably have voted Delete or Merge had I noticed this discussion, but this is about process, not content). DES 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. If there is a consensus to delete then I don't see it. --Allen3 16:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. I'm not even sure it need really go back to AfD. What does (blk-cmp error) mean? -Splash 16:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's referring to "block-compression error", a problem with a previous version of MediaWiki that meant that some pages couldn't be deleted in the normal way – IIRC a developer had to do it manually. It's since been fixed. android79 17:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - Does that mean this was a jargony way of saying that the "normal" way of deleting this page (by seeking consensus) handn't worked, so the clsoer was going to do a special fix (by ignoring consensus in the close)? If it is, then this sounds a lot like an abuse of admin powers. Does anyone think this issue should be raised anywhere else? DES 18:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Absolutely not. It only means that the delete button didn't work for this particular article, and the page had a special template added to it to note the fact that the page should be deleted but couldn't be due to a bug in the software. Note that User:Pending deletion script, obviously a bot, actually carried out the deletion, and not ABCD. android79 18:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh I see. I hadn't checked the deletion log. Sorry for jumping to an assumption. It was only the very odd nature of the closing conclusion that made me do so. I also hadn't paid attention to the fact that this deletion happened before the last verion upgrade in MediaWiki software. Sorry. DES 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete - looking at what little content there is I would have voted to delete had I seen the VfD but there clearly is no consensus to do so. - Tεx τ urε 16:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. No consensus to delete. android79 17:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and while we're at it, I don't think that VfD/Afd is really the place to get rid of individual episode guide articles anyway. If there's a problem with them, a Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion for the lot would be a far better way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have no idea what my reasoning was at that time. – ABC D✉ 18:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete; I think ABCD must have just miscounted this one. Nandesuka 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, no consensus to delete. Zoe 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete per ABCD.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 17:49:18, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

September 8

Turn to Fall

I vote for undeletion of the page "Turn to Fall". Why? Primarily because "Your Turn To Fall" is listed, and shows up in google searches for "turn to fall". The "Turn to Fall" page helped to disambiguate this naming similarity between 2 very different bands. — (Unsigned comment by 131.107.0.80.)

Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. VfU is concerned with deletion process, not article content. android79 00:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD of an article apparently bordering on a copyright violation. Interesting lack of references to WP:MUSIC though. -Splash 00:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- WP:MUSIC is well-enough known generally on AfD now for it to be an "implied" reasoning for deletion of band vanity, IMO. android79 00:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that's probably true. -Splash 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if it weren't though, it would be a slippery slope to review each AfD based on a qualitative evaluation of the votes advanced, although in theory that's not a bad principle. That said, this should stay deleted per WP:MUSIC ;). Dottore So 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted valid VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

KD. AFD seems valid.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 12:32:10, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

September 7

Elf Only Inn

This page was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Elf Only Inn, but has since been recreated. Is it possible to get the 13 deleted revisions restored? Alphax 11:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why has it been recreated? Delete it again. It needs to survive VfU before it can be recreated. Everyking 11:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD. Note: I have temporarily restored the missing history items as requested, pending the result of this VfU debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Am I confused? This doesn't look substantially identical to the VfD'd version. If anything, the history should be redeleted per the VfD, and the article left alone. Unless I misunderstand. -Splash 12:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, because hstory only undeletions can be made at any time without a VFU debate as long as it is not copyvios which are being restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, I was sort of trying to invent a reason why it was down here rather than up there ↑. I was slightly confused by Everyking's comment: an article can be recreatd whenever you like; there's no need to seek VfU's 'permission' unless you want something actively undeleted. I suppose then that the history should just be undeleted and that's all we have to do?-Splash 13:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There is also Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Elf Only Inn 2, which is a little odd, since Mikkalai initially voted to delete, changed his vote to keep, then closed the debate himself? I hope this doesn't need to go through AfD again. android79 13:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- That is certainly a touch-and-go closure. Pehaps it should return to AfD. -Splash 13:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The new version is sufficiently different from the previously deleted content that it is probably not eligible for speedy-deletion. However, some of the concerns with the first version appear to remain (principally, can a webcomic that only ran for 2 years meet the recommended inclusion guidelines). I believe that this probably should go through AFD again. The history-only undeletion will be helpful in evaluating the growth of this article. Rossami (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Nominate it for deletion again. Nomination should point out that it is a re-creation of material previously voted for deletion but that the re-creation is somewhat different and therefore should get a new vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD. The article has grown beyond the stubby version that was originally deleted. Procedural concerns about the second AfD being closed by the nominator can be cleared via another go through the process. --Allen3 14:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and send to AfD. Hopefully this can finally be settled. android79 14:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD. Zoe 19:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

To which of the two VfDs are you refering? The VfD from April that resulted in deletion or the VfD from July that resulted in keep? --Allen3 19:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

September 6

Template:Chub

This was under discussion at WP:TFD#Template:Chub. It was deleted with the comment "sillyness" when the TfD discussion was only partway through, although the developing consensus was pretty clearly to delete. None the less, "sillyness" is not in the WP:CSD, and this was an invalid speedy. Furthermore, it is possible (albiet unlikely) that people with persusaive arguemnts might emerge for keeping this on TfD. That is why the various non-speedy deletion processes have defined time periods. Undelete and allow the TfD process to run its normal course. DES 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Undelete. Septentrionalis 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No, keep deleted. This was a G1 speedy. Meaningful content? None. History? I can't check but I doubt it. It could also be burnt under G2, as well, if we didn't want to bite our newbie. There is also an arguable case, given the complete non-relation between title and content, that this was nothing more than a joke, (it certainly wasn't a hoax!) and that is defined in Misplaced Pages:Vandalism which is a G3 speedy. The G's apply to templates as well as articles. -Splash 22:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted (I deleted it). I don't see why we have to take such obviously stupid things through a TfD process. There have been a rash of them recently, and saying that an article is "overweight" is just plain daft. I also agree with what Splash is saying above. violet/riga (t) 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I saw the template before it was deleted, and it said, "This article is overweight. You can help by splitting it up", wikilinked like {{split}} is linked. I don't know about you, but I thought it came pretty close to being {{nonsense}}, so I don't see any problems with a speedy deletion. Titoxd 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I also saw the template, and it clearly was a nonsensical joke. The speedy deletion was appropriate. —Lifeisunfair 22:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Appears to have been a valid speedy delete under criteria A6, as the template disparaged any article where it was placed. --Allen3 22:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- On those grounds, {{verylarge}} and {{split}} and surely {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} should be speedied. Besides A6 should only apply to attacks againt people, singualrly or in groups, i think. If the above was a joke, I apologize for taking it seriously. DES 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. An obvious joke – let's use some common sense here. Silliness is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. Joke articles (or templates, in this case) are specified as vandalism. android79 12:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
What Splash said.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 19:38:38, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

September 2

Korps Nationale Reserve

The Korps Nationale Reserve article was deleted,the reason given was that the page was not in english. Might I suggest that the {{notenglish}} tag was created for this purpose, and that this is not a proper reason for speedy deletion of an article. Indeed IIRC the proposal for speedy deeltion of articles not in english was voted down. Undelete and list for transaltion, or put on AfD if content turns out not to be proper for soem otehr reason. DES 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that not being in english is not a speedy criterion, the full text of this article prior to tagging for deletion was Names B compagnie 20 Natres Bat. verwijs ik u naar www.natres.nl. My dutch is pretty poor but I think this loosely translates to "B Company of the Natres battalion can be found at www.natres.nl". That would qualify under speedy case A3, "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link..." Rossami (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. Babelfish gives a translation that is functionally the same as Rossami's. I agree with the assessment that this qualified as a speedy under criteria A3. --Allen3 19:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- It takes me 5 minutes to write a stub on this subject. Can I, or would I be breaking Misplaced Pages deletion policy if I did so? Andries 19:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  - You absolutely can, per WP:BOLD and the preamble at the top of the page. Just make sure it is not "substantially identical" or it'll be speedied, but I think that would quite hard to manage! Worth mentioning here that you've rewritten it when you have. -Splash 20:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Go for it. I can't think of any policy issues, so long as it's different from the version that was speedied. (I'm assuming you think it's notable enough to be worth a stub; try to say something about it that is notable or someone might nominate it for VfD). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Thirded. Definitely go ahead and create a meaningful article. Zoe 19:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    - But what title should I choose? I propose Dutch army national reserves Andries 19:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      - In that case I'd favour an undelete first, so that the page - along with its history - can be properly renamed. It wouldn't hurt to have the Dutch text ready while expanding the stub! --IJzeren Jan 20:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on this link, the proper name in English appears to be Royal Netherlands Army reserve. Several redirects would be appropriate after the article is created. As for undeletion of the original, a history-merge is a simple task after the new article is created. --Allen3 22:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats

Category:Wikipedians by generation was nominated for deletion on August 18. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 18#Category:Wikipedians by generation (from Aug 18). The consensus at the moment is to keep it, by 13 to 9. Category:Teenage Wikipedians was also deleted and depopulated, apparently as part of the same nomination. As a result of these deletions, Category:Millennial Wikipedians has no parent category. dbenbenn | talk 15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Undelete Does not appear to have had reasonable consensus for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. After being listed for seven days, there was consensus to delete Wikipedians by generation, and so it was. The discussion was kept open for the subcats which weren't tagged for deletion. As such, I'm ok with undeleting teenage wikipedians. --Kbdank71 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete (or just permit recreation, if it had no content as it appears). A substantial amount of people appear to find this useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:44, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Keep deleted. It was a valid deletion. The current vote count mostly is just for the subcats (which are kept). You can see the point in the discussion where Kbdank extended it for the subcats ("NOTE") and the voting is much different after that. Why not just recategorize the subcats? Dmcdevit·t 22:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Restore each category to its status pre-discussion. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, conclusion was valid. R adiant _>|< 09:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Given Kbdank71's explanation above, the CfD was valid. -Splash 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Before NOTE, the vote was 9del, 3keep. After the note, the total as of now is 11del, 14 keep. However, it is not clear that all of the votes that were placed after the NOTE were indeed directed only at the subcats (read them). I think it will be useful and fair to have an unambiguous CfD.—encephalon | 04:51:19, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

August 31

Hubbub

Template:Undelete

I submitted an article on the etymology of the word Hubbub to Wiktionary (article title, Hubbub), and I was chuffed to see it automatically converted to Misplaced Pages; I then found that Ambi re-converted the article - back to Wiktionary! Will it end up in limbo? Is there any place for it in Wiki-world? I'd prefer if the article appeared in W'pedia, as it involves interesting history and culture and may attract intelligent edits. Is it permissible for an etymology article to escape the cold house of W'tionary and remain in W'pedia? How should I change it to fit the frame and achieve undeletion? --shtove 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A tricky one, personally I think etymology belongs on wiktionary but if they don't want it either we need to do some work to get our policies to not leave a gap in the middle. No vote as of yet. --fvw * 00:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. A transwiki'd article is only speediable if it has been transwikied as a result of a VfD, per CSD A5. This didn't get a VfD so should be restored, and given one. -Splash 00:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The content you are discussing is currently in Wiktionary (see wikt:hubbub). I can't find any record that it was ever removed from Wiktionary. The form and format of the long etymology section is not really Wiktionary standard but the content definitely is. "Dictionary entries" (as we use that term) are articles about the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase. I don't see how the mere discussion of the etymology of the word could rise beyond that standard. Wiktionary does accept these kinds of contributions and, in my experience, has highly qualified editors who can help build out the article. Leave it in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Still, it was certainly deleted from here. There is no process for an admin to transwiki by themselves and delete, save for WP:IAR. Often, dicdefs get the treatment at VfD and are kept. That's why it should go through a VfD first. By all means leave it at Wikt, but give it a fair go here first. -Splash 02:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: You said "here is no process for an admin to transwiki by themselves and delete". Actually, that remains an unclear point. The old interpretation was that any transwiki'd article could be removed from the source Wikimedia project immediately. A transwiki was not really interpreted as a "deletion" because any editor could reverse the decision without special admin powers (by running the transwiki process in reverse). All content and attribution history is preserved within Wikimedia even if it's gone from one particular wiki-project. The people who generally favored that interpretation usually relied on the wording in the text at meta:transwiki and argued that as a meta rule, it should have precedence over the individual project rules. Now, there is certainly room to interpretation and debate even over the language on the meta page. Add the recent debate over the CSD case and the current state of the rules for post-transwiki are very uncertain. Reasonable people could argue that the "old interpretation" still applies and does provide for a process to transwiki then immediately remove from the source project. Regardless, I still feel an undelete would be somewhat pointless because I see no possibility of it surviving the VfD discussion. An etymology is clearly lexical, not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd say Wiktionary it, and find a suitable place to redirect the link on Misplaced Pages. R adiant _>|< 07:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the W'tionary link. Apart from the matter of administrators' protocols, I take issue with the lexical/encyclopaedic division: the article treats of etymology, but it does have (I think) potential to attract edits relating to early modern Protestant colonialism and nationalism. On other points: I'm sure it was originally submitted to W'tionary, although I can't see it in the history; and in the process of being reconverted to W'tionary the block quote has lost its form and the footnotes now stretch over the horizon of the screen. If I may cast a vote in my own cause, I say undelete.

Categories: