Misplaced Pages

Content is now at User:Snowspinner/Thomasine Church. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I'm unimpressed by the excuses being advanced for ignoring past practice, commonsense and (as has become normal practice in this little fiefdom) the undeletion policy. Understand it once and for all: DRV does not get to gainsay the undeletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment If you haven't noticed the news, the Sigenthaler matter as of now isn't so much about the law as it is about public respect. Traditional media sources, I suspect, are predisposed to be skeptical of WP anyway, and a surprising number of them jumped on the "dangers of WP" bandwagon. As for the status of the legal situation, I freely admit huge doubt. No other source of WP's kind has ever made its "discarded edits" history so extensively available and easily viewable before. IP isn't my bag, but I would not be pleased with a suit on the question of article histories, merely because it is a matter of first impression, and those are scary. Wonder what BD thinks... Xoloz 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, the material is supposed to be unverifiable (odd, because I had no problems verifying that the content fairly represented what the church said about itself, so at most it was a matter of point of view). This isn't a legal matter.

Even Britannica's reputation might suffer if its first drafts and intermediate workings were made public, but that isn't a good excuse to deny a straightforward request for information made by an established, and rather hardworking, Misplaced Pages editor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Decisions to be reviewed

• WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

2005-12-13

Wang Sichao

Moved from User talk:Enochlau

Don't you think before delete articles, you should notify the one who wrote it first? Don't you think you should delete an article without any discussions? Well, that article is a stub and very low-quality, but you should not make a speedy deletion without notify the writer or make any discussions. Someone added Template:nn-bio tags on it, but the one added the tag who even has no his/her own user page! So you would better undelete that article and if possible and never make speedy deletion like that. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Google "Wang Sichao" | "Sichao Wang" 257 results, "王思潮" 19400 results, so this guy is importance or significance enough.

I know this article is low-quality, but what is Misplaced Pages's speedy deletion policy? Can an administrator delete an article like that? I doubt if the administrator have read Misplaced Pages's policy carefully. — Yaohua2000 21:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted looks like a very sold A7 speedy delete as written. Are there any references (to published books or news sources, for example) that might make the article verifiable? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, allow recreation. The only claim to fame in the article was that he is a Chinese astronomer "that believes UFO is a extra-terrestrial spacecraft visit the Earth." This does not look like a very strong claim to notability, and is thus within the bounds of admin discretion. If the article is recreated then some information on the professional qualifications, with appropriate citations, are needed to explain why anyone would care if the subject thinks UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. In addition, remember that it is the responsibility of the article author, not the deleting admin, to do the research to provide this information. --Allen3  22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note that this was speedily undeleted by the deleting admin and is now on AfD. android79 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Comment: this guy is absolutely notable, but my English is not good enough to write all them out, so if anyone here can help me, that would be fine. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • btw, you can find some additional information at Google Google:"Wang Sichao" Google:"Sichao Wang" Google:"王思潮". — Yaohua2000 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deleteion loks like a clearcut A7 (nn-bio) speedy to me. i have re-taggd this as a speedy, and so opined in the ongoing AfD. DES 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-12

List of Internet forum software

Another 2/0 delete vote closed as "no consensus" Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Internet forum software. I would have deleted it, but it should have at least been relisted without closing. If there are going to be quorum rules (which isn't an entirely bad idea) there should be some sort of system in place for consistency's sake. As far as I know there is none. -R. fiend 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist the only explicit votes were for a delete. This should have been closed as a delete, or else relisted for greater participation. It is not a non-consensus, IMO. DES 17:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per precedent of Mythics (which was just deleted, but the same issue at heart), below. Xoloz 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. I don't think this is as clear a case as Mythics, as the nominator agreed that the article might have merit if the redlinks were re-added, along with short summaries. Shortly after the afd was closed, the redlinks in fact were re-added, though summaries were not; instead, external links were. Nevertheless, the unfulfilled suggestion was not sufficient on its own to justify a no-consensus close; the way to draw more participation on afds is not to ignore and overrule those Wikipedians who do take the time to comment on them. —Cryptic (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Tεxτurε 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Enough of these pointless relistings. It's a list of some of the most important and high profile software components on the internet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, if you don't like "pointless relistings" I could go delete it right now. -R. fiend 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since it's a unanimous delete vote, I would endorse that action. Zoe (216.234.130.130 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
• Overturn and relist - Obviously bad grounds for deletion given in AfD (lists have many uses that categories do not, eg. they can show gaps in coverage through red links, and they can provide additional structure and information as this list does). I sympathise with Tony (WP:NOT a bureaucracy and all) but it's risking CSD G4's to have the list around without a non-deleting AfD to protect it. --- Charles Stewart 21:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Quorums on AFD are a very bad idea, because they would only increase its bad atmosphere and general unpleasantness. Radiant_>|< 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article as is. AFD made the right call here (perhaps accidentally), all delete votes were predicated on concerns that were actually addressed by superior versions in the history, and have now been fixed. Relist if anyone actually has a reason they'd like it deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist Even though admins are given leeway in how they close AFD's normally AFD's with so few votes should just be relisted so that more comment can be gotten. Jtkiefer ---- 02:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. If there is no real participation, there is no consensus. Admin made proper use of discretion on close. -- JJay 03:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, unanimous AfD for deletion, it is not the closing admin's prerogative to arrogate the deletion process. User:Zoe| 03:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist -- if nobody voted to keep the article, then a "no consensus keep" is an inappropriate result. --Metropolitan90 05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist per Metropolitan90 and others. You need at least 2 different type of votes before you can call it no concensus. - Mgm| 11:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, its obvious, George Bush will declare war on wikipedia if you have a list of forum software on it and you will all be nuked. Havent you guys got a life ???? So many lines discussing the merits of enslaving some team of people to review to review articles that were deleted merely because they didnt nicely fall in with your POV.... Maybe it was untidy, but that just means you are too lazy to tidy it up. Maybe it was too short, but that just means that you were too lazy to add to it. How can a wikipedia page ever get created if it has to be created perfect ? You are perfectly mad. take a holiday if you delete, re-delete and permanently ban redeleted pages just because its not perfect from the start.

Unsigned comment by 220.233.107.29. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Insufficient AfD participation. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bankable star

• Bankable star (AfD discussion)

Before the change to the article on 2005-12-01 20:21 UTC there were 6 editors who said that this should be transwikied and deleted. After that change, 3 of those 6 editors (including the nominator) changed their minds, one further editor (Gurubrahma) clearly didn't read the article (because at the time it had already been expanded in the way that xe said it "could possibly be expanded") and said that it should be deleted because of its potential for vandalism (even though the article had never actually been vandalized at any point during its entire existence, and even though, by that rationale, we should delete George W. Bush), one further editor said that we should delete it because "it is an article about a survey" (like the many other articles about surveys that we have), and one further editor simply echoed the rationale of an editor who had looked at the significantly different article from before the change.

My partisanship with respect to the deletion of this article is up-front, having been expressed unequivocally in the original AFD discussion. ☺ I do not wish to imply any criticism of Johnleemk's closure. My only concern is that there might not have been enough discussion of the article as it stood after it was changed. I therefore only ask Deletion Review to consider whether this article should be sent back to AFD for further discussion and (one hopes) the opinions of more editors. Uncle G 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete if substantial changes were made to the article during the course of the AFD. It is worth obliging a request by an outstanding user to clarify this matter, without speculation as to whether people who wanted to delete the first version would still want to delete the second. Or, feel free to simply upload a new improved version; sources proving that this is a common phrase rather than one used in a single survey may satisfy some of the objections presented in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I was one of those who wanted to delete the first version. I did notice the rewrite; while I wouldn't have commented on the afd if the article was in that state when it was nominated, I didn't think it was of much value, and I made a conscious decision not to alter my comment. The rewrite was a one-sentence dictdef leading into a full article about a specific survey, including that survey's results; at most, that would have belonged at Hollywood Reporter's list of bankable stars or something similar. Uncle G, I have all the respect in the world for you, but your efforts to save the article at this title weren't sufficient.

  That said, I was also surprised at Gurubrahma's and Hahnchen's comments; my best guess at an explanation is that they didn't realize that the article had been rewritten mid-afd, and thought that the previous voters considered the current version to be a dictdef. Specifically noting on an afd that you rewrote the article isn't tooting your own horn; it helps to stave off such misunderstandings.

  (Incidentally, I emphatically disagree with Christopher's assertion that merely showing "bankable star" to be a common phrase would be sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. Blue car is a very common phrase, with 486,000 google hits; nevertheless, it is and should remain a redlink.) —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, that was a stupid misinterpretation of what you meant by idiomatic based on not reading very closely. My point was that while I think this is definitely an encyclopedic concept, this might not be the best name, but then again it's not a bad name. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist per Uncle G, who is conservative in this area. To dispute Cryptic mildly, "blue car" is only a "common phrase" in the strictest denotative sense of that term. "Blue car" occurs often, just like "white cat", but it has no special associations as phrase in itself. Contrast "white cat" with "black cat" if you are unsure what I mean. The latter has extensive associations as a phrase beyond its literal meaning, thanks to superstition. Xoloz 17:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You're saying the same thing I am here. :) Black cat has an article not because it's a common phrase, but because it has a meaning independent of the mere words. In contrast, bankable star is in fact used in some dictionaries as a usage example of bankable. —Cryptic (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok... sorry :) I guess I'm just inclined to consider bankable star more of a connotative phrase. Xoloz 18:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse!

• SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! (AfD discussion)

Recently, someone created a raft of articles all related to various Flash-based web-game clones themed around SpongeBob SquarePants. Someone nominated a group of these games all at once under a collective AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants online games. The result of the debate was a clear delete, and the articles were all deleted.

However, SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! was listed in a seperate, standalone AfD, where it was kept as "no consensus" with a 6/3 delete/keep ratio. (Insert standard "AfD is not a vote" disclaimers here.)

While I have no issue with Johnleemk's verdict on this AfD discussion as a stand-alone item (I probably would have ruled likewise in the absence of any other information), the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! discussion was listed a day prior to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants online games, suggesting that Johnleemk may not have been aware of the discussion at the latter page.

My feeling is that the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants online games should be taken into consideration when deciding the proper fate of SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse!. Clearly, had SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! been included in the collective AfD discussion that expunged the remainder of the SpongeBob SquarePants-related online Flash games, it would not be with us today. → Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 13:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, feel free to relist. Your point is extremely uncompelling, since the Collapse! vote got a larger turnout and more discussion than the group nomination. If anything, the previous set should be undeleted given what happened in the Collapse! AFD. Different evidence was presented at this AFD, which leads me to believe that the games aren't entirely the same. The closure was entirely appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have the order reversed. The standalone vote for SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! was listed a day prior to the listing of the collective vote for all the remaining SpongeBob SquarePants webgames, and was closed a day earlier as well. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that the games are identical to each other. Rather, they are clones of other webgames, with SpongeBob theming being the only difference between the SpongeBob versions and the generic versions. (SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! being a clone of the more well-known and generic Collapse!, for example.) → Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 14:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry; I meant "first" and "second" referring to the order you presented them, rather than in which they happened, which is rather irrelevant. I've clarified this point of confusion above. It would be reasonable to merge this article to Collapse -the game (and also changing that title?). Christopher Parham (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as Kept/Endorse closure per Mr. Parham. I agree with the above; a debate receiving more extensive individual attention should not be overridden by a related group debate, irrespective of which was first and second. Maybe Collapse got lucky in its listing order, but "them's the breaks" -- feel free to relist in a while, though. Xoloz 17:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

December 11, 2005

December 9, 2005

Treigloffobia

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Treigloffobia. Per User:Splash's closing comments, "I've little choice since the sources cited certainly don't include the word with either spelling (and English sources are better on the English Misplaced Pages). I hope this is not systemic bias, but, if it is, then either Deletion Review will fix it, or a comprehensive rewrite with good, reliable sources will do.", he seemed to suggest that this should be undeleted, and I agree with him. Whilst I voted delete (actually BJAODN), latter additions to the AFD vote suggested that the page may have had content of worth later on (I didn't look at the article later so don't know). I was just checking through the AFD's and this one stuck out like a sore thumb. Also note that there were only 3 votes: 1 keep and 2 deletes. Surely not enough for a consensus. I'd like it to be relisted to form consensus. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment- two things:
  1. If I had been an admin and closed this vote, I'd have counted the two anonymous contributors (if they were indeed different) as a single keep vote, since their comments were substantive and evidence-based, which would have resulkted in no consensus. Splash did a pretty good job closing this, though, given that the AfD didn't get to grips with the issues in a satisfactory way.
  2. I'd like to see this article, and I've posted an active cy.wikipedia editor : can we temporarily undelete this article, please? --- Charles Stewart 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (copyedit Charles Stewart 15:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
• The reasoned keepers didn't do the job properly. The sources that were their reasons do not contain the word at all, in much the same way as the fake skin condition debate below. Thus the keep side had close to zero weight behind their case. WP:V is a non-negotiable standard, and simply linking to a website that doesn't back your claims clearly doesn't meet the standard. Further to that, Uncle G implies he has looked around himself, and found nothing. He's good at AfDs and finding sources so if he couldn't find any, there probably aren't any. There are also zero Google hits. Keep deleted, no case for undeletion. -Splash 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I understood the post reasoned keepers as saying that the word was inflected, hence what occurs in their link is not the same sequence of letters (eg. in German "gehen" and "geht" are the same word, modulo morphology, and I understand that Welsh morphology is quite tricky). I'd like a Welsh speaker to comment on what the claims in the AfD are plausible or not. --- Charles Stewart
    • The first comment from the first anonymous user merely explained that there is consonant mutation in Welsh morphology, and gave some examples. But that wasn't the actual subject of this article, and thus wasn't a particularly relevant argument. Uncle G 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I looked to see whether I could find anything out about "Treigloffobia", or about any purported fear of consonant mutation in Welsh morphology. I couldn't. There appears to be no such fear. My hypothesis, based upon the comments by the two anonymous users, is that this is a nonce concept that was made up by a teacher of the Welsh language one day to encourage xyr students to be less concerned about making mistakes — in other words: that this is just yet another made-up phobia. But I couldn't even find evidence for that. Uncle G 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's progress, since it supports the claim that this is a neologism, but I don't think it quite settles the matter. --- Charles Stewart 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Splash's research and the fact that this has absolutely zero Google hits, I'd say that it's unverifiable for a start. I sincerely hope we're not going to start seeing people try to undelete articles just because the vote count on the AfD is low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Observe that the point I made about morphology shows that 0 google hits is consistent with there being much documentation of content involving this concept word on the internet. IMO, we need the input of a fluent Welsh speaker. --- Charles Stewart 18:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Can I just comment on Zordrac's nomination here? It includes the suggestion that, at the time of deletion, I thought it should be undeleted. If I had thought that, I would obviously not have deleted. AfD closure are not made with a gun to the head. I merely indicated that I thought this could be systemic bias, and that, if it was, there were means of repairing that. In the meantime, WP:V is more important, and suggesting I should call the University of Wales isn't really something I felt mandated to do... -Splash 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Well-reasoned close by perhaps WP's best closer. In the case of close, low vote decisions, a thorough sound admin opinion makes all the difference. Xoloz 17:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Danish Pedophile Association

Got speedied and protected while the user was still creating it (so there wasn't even anything there except the first link). Ouch!

It's a pretty distasteful subject, for sure, that's probably why it got deleted, but it's even in the new jersey news, so it's certainly notable, as far as I can tell. Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unprotect, notable, at least let the guy finish typing before you delete, sheesh. Talk about on the ball! ;-) Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. The content was not the same as the original speedy, so I don't see that a good reason was given for deletion. I tried to undelete it but apparently I screwed something up, it didn't work the way I wanted it to. Friday (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  I believe I got it back the way I wanted it now, after several tries. Apologies for getting in a delete/undelete war with myself- I'll leave a note on my talk page warning me not to do it again. Friday (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding. This isn't much more than link spamming. Doesn't that user have anything better to do? - Lucky 6.9 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky, don't wheel-war eh? Let the guy actually add some content. Go and secure a promise from him first if you don't trust me. :-) Kim Bruning 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Kim, I trust you implicitly. All right, let's let it ride. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks dude. I've also nudged Gbleem to actually go forth and edit, so let's see if he keeps his promise. :-) Kim Bruning 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Friday (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is the usual "file under don't speedy within the first ten minutes of an article's existence if it's not obvious vandalism," followed by "deletion regards content, not topic." Phil Sandifer 01:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• • No, this was the "article which contains nothing but an external link and a red link to an article which doesn't exist, making the entire thing look like an attack page, which is validly speedy deleted." User:Zoe| 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Who was being attacked? The Danish Pedophile Association or Nambla? They are equally icky in my view. --Gbleem 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The person whose name you included in the article with no other content but a link. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Uh...no. It wasn't. The original speedies were pure, Grade-A link spam. And I wasn't the first to delete it, either. I've defended some really distasteful articles. This one, frankly, stinks. On ice. However, let's see what becomes of this. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Ambi 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Moot. Whatever it was (I haven't looked), it's certainly not a speedyable article now. —Cryptic (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Useful article for some law enforcement official, this may provide a beginning to a successful arrest someday. I'm all for it!Hamster Sandwich 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Moshzilla

Moshzilla is an internet phenonenom, I think that it belongs in wikipedia. please undelete it.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Moshzilla. I counted 6 votes to merge or keep and 9 to delete. One of the merge votes (Rtconner's) actually bolded "delete", but merge and delete are not compatible, so it either it should count as a merge as per his his reasoning (see vote below).

Merge and delete are compatible. The only reason why "merge and delete" is deprecated because merging histories requires a great deal of work on the part of the closing sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, has had a small impact on a relatively small amount of people. Rtconner]]

• Undelete and relist, I can see people willing to merge and to delete, but neither has a concensus. - Mgm| 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). It would have been nice if the closing admin had articulated his/her reasoning a bit more clearly. We are left now to reverse-engineer the decision. I count 9 unambiguous "delete" opinions, 3 "straight keeps", 2 "merge and redirect" and 2 "merge and delete". Rtconner (one of the two "merge and deletes") is a very new user who was actually editing as an anon. While the closing admin has the right to discount that vote, he/she is not obligated to do so. The other "merge and delete" was the nominator. Based on the comments made in each case, I think it was within allowable discretion to count those as "deletes" rather than as "keep as merge". I can see a reasonable interpretation of this decision as 11 "delete" to 5 "keep". Furthermore, I see an unambiguous 13 to 3 decision against keeping it as an independent article. If that was the logic actually used by the closing admin, I think it was within the allowable range of interpretation. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how a vote that starts: Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, can possibly interpreted as a delete even when they put a bolded delete in front of it. - Mgm| 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist I'm sorry to have to vote this way when the original nomination is so poor; however, unless an article is particularly thorny and contentious, I dislike "reverse-engineering" the close. Rossami's very good at closing, and his reasoning is appropriate, but the closing admin had an obligation to provide a good explanation in a close case; if he doesn't, I see a flaw in process. Xoloz 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per Xoloz. To argue against Rossami's assessment: merging the article was repeatedly proposed in the AfD, and was not seriously contested. Furthermore, I'd say that this is the kind of case that If in doubt, don't delete is about. --- Charles Stewart 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Reading over the discussion, my interpretation is that there was clear consensus that Moshzilla is not an important internet meme and deserved at most brief mention in some other article. It was not so clear whether Moshzilla should be left in place as a redirect, but not an unreasonable sysop's judgement call. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist

A very important concept that is central to Israeli/Palestinian negotiations. The article that I wrote was speedy deleted, with no review, because a different article with that same title had apparently been deleted before. I was under the impression that AFD votes were for a specific article, not a blanket prohibition on anything ever being created under that title again. Obviously, there are potential issues with an article like this being subject to an edit war or insertion of personal opinion, but that's what vandalism patrol is for. At the very least, the new article should get its day in AFD before being summarily deleted. Crotalus horridus 20:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks like Jayjg deleted it under CSD G4, which only applies if the material is A substantially identical copy. If it is not, undelete --- Charles Stewart 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is slightly difficult, and I'm not going to reach a conclusion straight off. From reading the old and the new articles, they are substantially identical (which is what WP:CSD#G4 requires) insofar as the new article was a strict subset of the old, longer article on the same material. AfD has rejected the same material before. Note that even though the old article included arguments both "for" and "against" as the new did (and its ext link does), it was soundly rejected on POV OR grounds. The speedy was valid, imo. There was no sourcing in the original article, but there are only 2 sources in the new one (a Guardian article and mag article, which seems a little below the necessary level for this kind of topic). However, that debate was a long time ago, and we should sometimes revisit things. That seems rather to fail in this case, however, since one presumes that nothing about the situation has substantially changed since mid-May. I'm not sure what to do, or what to recommend. -Splash 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, or make the content temporarily to establish that it is effectively the same as the old version. But generally, if content is deleted for being POV/OR, the addition of sources is a change that would almost always be described as substantial. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Simply adding an external link or two doesn't automatically mean your article earns undeletion when AfD has soundly removed it (when the material was far more comprehensive) in the past. -Splash 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that depends entirely on the article and the nature of the links, doesn't it. And having no idea what those are, better safe than sorry. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Another interesting case for review. The deleted version of this article (3 May 2005) was 968 words. The AFD decision was an overwhelming "delete" decision. The speedy-deleted version (30 Nov 2005) was a mere 212 words. A side-by-side review of the texts gives every indication of having been independently written. Several external links were included which were not part of the 3 May version. As Charles Stewart says above, the speedy-deletion criterion only applies if the content was a "substantially identical copy". Even with such an overwhelming prior decision, I think this was sufficiently different that the speedy criterion should not have been applied. The primary arguments for deletion made during the original discussion were that there was an inherent bias in the topic and that the article constituted original research. The links provided in the 30 Nov version do use the phrase "right to exist" but my own cursory review does not suggest that it is the widely-known "political shorthand" alleged in the article. Overturn the speedy-deletion and immediately list for regular AFD. The AFD should explicitly reference the prior discussion since many of the problems cited with the earlier version still appear to apply to the latest version. In particular, it has not yet been established to my satisfaction that this version is not also original research. Rossami (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • AfD rejects topics, not words. The new article contains almost if not all the information of the earlier article. I don't think it adds up to suggest, as is often done here that an article on the same topic covering the same ground is not subject to the previous AfD. Particularly when the previous AfD did not merely remove the article because of being badly in need of cleanup or anything. -Splash 16:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That is patently untrue. AfD is not about salting the earth about a topic - it's about saying this article is not encyclopedia-quality. There is always the possibility of another article being written with the same name that better establishes notability, figures out a way around the POV problems, etc. Phil Sandifer 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The same name, yes. Even the same topic. But the same topic in the same way covering the same material, even having the same effective subheadings within the article? Anyway, like I said in my first comment, I don't really know what we should do with this. -Splash 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - It sounds like there are a range of views on what constitutes "a substantially identical copy". I think that having essentially the same structure is much too weak: we will speedy potentially good article by this critieria, but if all the claims and sources in the new article occur in the AfD'd article, then CSD G4 looks like it applies. But if there are any new sources for old claims, they might justify the fact that the new article is not original research, and so CSD A4 should not apply. I'm still undecided, in other words. --- Charles Stewart 17:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist at AfD. When in doubt, don't delete. Hence, when in doubt, undelete. —Lifeisunfair 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD in a few weeks - I take the position that if a phrase gets loads of google hits then in needs to be in wikipedia (or perhaps wikitionary). "Israel's Right to exist" (quotes included) gets 126,000 google hits and "Right to exist" (+Israel) gets 650,000. here. So I say it should certainly have an article. Let the content deveop for a few weeks and then put it up for an AfD. I am sure that on refection the deleting admin would agree - and I understand why he speedeleted this. jucifer 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Snowspinner restored this but neglected to do as this discussion clearly mandates. He also neglected to make a note of that fact here. The new AfD is here. If you're going to do a job, Snowspinner, at least do it properly. -Splash 17:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The undeletion was cut and dry. I assumed someone would make the AfD. Since I had no investment in its deletion and didn't particularly feel qualified to write the reasons for deletion, I declined to do so, because it would amount to "Um, yeah, so some people want this deleted." And, really, as it was not a CSD4, the AfD relisting was not a causal consequence of its undeletion, but a decision outside the real jurisdiction of this page - at least in this case. Phil Sandifer 21:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • CommentGood process-minders nominate pro-forma and either abstain or even vote Keep in the nom. It honors the rule of consensus. You have expressed hostility to process before, so I'm not surprised. I ask you please, if you don't like due process, then let someone else end the discussions here. Don't start processes you know you won't finish. However you feel about due process, many of us here endorse it, and it mildly disrespectful to us to have things left half-done. Xoloz 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not a sensible process to force an AfD on an article that has no actual opposition to it. Much of what we see here are articles that got AfDed and nobody saw the AfD, so they were deleted with three votes. Why would we make that worse by AfDing an article that nobody actually wants to delete? We ought not throw all our trash on AfD, and it is not our job to declare an AfD to be necessary. If someone wants to AfD Right to exist, they should open an AfD. If they just want a procedural AfD for the sake of having one, they should expect me to try to stop that, because it's stupid. Phil Sandifer 23:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I see. "Stupid" is interesting word. You find my view stupid; I find yours likewise stupid. The simple act of re-nominating allows more community input, and allowing more community input (when you stipulate yourself that the AfD was likely underviewed) is a very good thing in almost all circumstances. Perhaps you feel that most voters aren't competent, and more input is bad (that's only one possible rationale to explain several positions you've taken anyway.) I strongly disagree with that: while not quite stupid, that position is quite arrogant, and (if more people agreed with it) Misplaced Pages would quickly atrophy, driving awaylots of good-faith users. If you consider the support of due process "stupid", you should expect to be regularly faced with devoted opposition and criticism from many. Process is about respecting consensus by giving people the opportunity to express their views. Unilateralism and process defiance stifles the opportunity for debate. Some think that's worse than stupid. Xoloz 01:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Misplaced Pages is not primarily a forum for debate. Nor is input inherently good - input on disputes is good, but there is no reason to grind our systems for generating input to a halt by asking for input where none is needed. Furthermore, please look at the situation - there is no AfD for this article. An earlier article on the same topic was deleted. This article was speedied. It was a wrongful speedy. That does not necessarily lead to an AfD, and if nobody actually wants to delete the article, there is no reason to have an AfD. This is not a renomination, because there was no first nomination. Which is itself a persuasive argument against community input - it's hardly a worthwhile thing if the community isn't going to bother to try to understand the situation first. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
            • That's certainly a better point than your first attempt above. It's true WP is an encyclopedia first, and not a debate club, as we often hear. I think some people underemphasize the full meaning of the first syllable, though. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be here if this were Aristo-pedia; to me, openness is the point of a Wiki, and almost any input is good (except for beating a very dead horse in some cases, eg. the school AfDs as they used to be, or the GNAA AfD number 500.) So, here, where there has been no discussion on this article, some discussion is needed and good. Also, because I respect discussions, the previous AfD on the same topic suggests a new AfD is in order. The topic was disputed before -- it's quite likely that it might be disputed again. Process exists to reinforce good assumptions; I assume input is good, and in this case (despite your attempts), I see ample reason to stand by that assumption and the process that aids its expression. I'm very glad we moved away from the earlier rhetoric, however. Xoloz 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article should not have been listed on AfD because there is no reason to list it there. "Somebody wanted it deleted" is never, ever, an acceptable reason to delete an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um... what? Somebody wanted it deleted, so it should go to AfD, because that is the whole purpose of AfD: to review whether someone's opinion of "this article should be deleted" matches the community's opinion. Whether it is deleted there or not is another different matter. Titoxd 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Titoxd that Mr. Sidaway's remark seems ill-thought. He may mean that disagrees with nom.'s by people who don't want an article deleted (who abstain and process nominate.) If so, odd opinion. He offered no argument to support that position (if it is what he meant), but I think process nominations are common, useful, fair, just, and Jimbo-followed (I consider the Ashida Kim renomination a process one, anyway.) So, I'll call the position I think Mr. Sidaway was taking flat wrong. Of course, it is easy to call something flat wrong when the viewpoint's advocate doesn't bother explaining what he means, and simply makes pronouncements blanketly and off-the-cuff, in a imperious manner. Xoloz 21:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I take User:Tony Sidaway's comments to mean that if there isn't a good reason to delete an article (by his standards) then it shouldn't be nominated on AfD. He has several times objected to "invalid nominations" when nominations gave reasona he doesn't apporve of or that he doesn't belive accord with the deletion policy. If this is his meaning, i disagree. Anyone may nominate any article for deletion in good faith, and the deeltion reason in the nomiantion need not be a strict quote from the deletion policy, although a reason that is not supported by the policy in some way is not likely to go far, nor in general should it. DES 22:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

List of non-fictional heroes

(Yes, it's yet another list. Let the eye-rolling commence. :)

Full disclosure: I voted "keep" on this, and created the page as a split from a larger list of heroes.
The AfD votes for this page don't seem to warrant a "rough consensus". The vote was 7/5 in favor of delete, 6/5 if the anonymous IP with an unusually high number of AfD votes is discounted. I think this should have been a "no-consensus" as with similar AfDs. Turnstep 14:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, on raw count I see 7d-5k, discounting the anon. However, the title of the list is inherently POV and that's pretty obvious. Why is Bill Clinton a hero? Why isn't my dad? It could probably be renamed as List of people referred to as heros, as was suggested in the debate. Now, Enochlau should have given a detailed reason for their decision here. However, I'm inclined to think that the poor arguments given for keeping it ("coz I like it", "you didn't nominate every other list for deletion") really don't match up to the POV (and unmentioned but important WP:V) problems. At least one keeper reasons themselves properly, but hobbles their argument by insisting we all know what a hero is: an entirely objectionable basis on which to construct a list such as this, and a point-of-view that was comprehensively challenged. Putting "List" at the front of your page title does not give you carte-blanche to flout core policies or demand that you be given leniency compared to non-lists, just because we have so many other lists. A poorly executed close, but a valid one nonetheless. Keep deleted. -Splash 14:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Including the anonymous delete vote we actually have eight deletes (perhaps you overlooked Colin Kimbrell). I probably would have closed this thing as a "no consensus" if I had done so, and calling it a "delete" should definitely have had a bit of explanation behind it. I am quite sure that I would not have voted to keep it however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). While the raw count numbers indicate no consensus, I agree with Splash that the arguments that the list is inherently POV is the determining factor. As mentioned in the AfD, there is no objective means to decide if real world figures such as Yasser Arafat, Josef Stalin, or Benedict Arnold were heroes or villains. --Allen3  15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This is why AfD is a discussion and not a vote-count. A thousand good-faith keep votes from good editors would not prevent this article from being inherently POV listcruft. android79 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In a way, but if we have 10 good faith "delete" votes vs. 50 good faith but misguided "keep" votes it would be difficult to call that a "consensus to delete", which is the real requirement. Discretion is usable in close cases, but it doesn't grant absolute freedom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A dozen editors voting "keep it because I like it" is not an attempt at forming consensus and completely ignores WP:NPOV. android79 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) per talk. I'm willing to be kind to things like articles on borderline-notable things, but in the case of an article with obvious neutrality and verifiability problems I just can't bring myself to overrule a close on the basis of technicalities. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse/keep deleted, per most of the above. It takes human judgement to close an Afd, since it's not a simple vote. A thousand people screaming "keep" cannot overrule core editorial policies like WP:V and WP:NOR. Friday (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted unsalvagably POV. Without going into a big cultural rant, the word "hero" is one of the most overused and misunderstood in the English language. Everybody who manages even a modicum of success at any endeavour, career, occupation, sport, etc is more than likely to be called a hero at some point. Hercules spins in his mythological grave every time a sentence appears in the newspaper like "District comptroller Anderson, who approved the funding to have the parking lot repaved outside Sewage Processing Facility #14, is truly a hero of the community". Hero in the modern sense means virtually anybody who does or tries to do something that might be seen as good by pretty much anyone else. If defined broadly enough, just about everyone is a hero. Such a nebulous concept is not a reasonable subject for a list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The key to a successful list is a clear criterion for inclusion that can effectively be policed in keeping with WP:V. As per Starblind, that is not the case here. Closing admins should take care with their summing up in cases like that are likely to be challenged: Turnstep did nothing wrong by raising this here. --- Charles Stewart 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I generally don't support overruling the apparent votes because something is "inherently POV", but the point here is that the keep arguments were clearly not well reasoned. Nobody argued that it wasn't POV, they argued it should be kept anyway. Thus I make the "vote" count 6-0. -- SCZenz 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• An observation in addition to my comment above: the only entry in the external links in the first version of the article says "The interpretation is entirely personal. It always is.". How right they are. -Splash 17:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for the reason already expressed. I cannot agree with the absolute veto power Android appears to give to one admin's interpretation of NPOV, but policy concerns do add some extra support to the delete cause in this instance. Xoloz 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted but note that I can think of a NPOV list at this title, though not one I'm qualified to write. (Just as a note about why it's inappropriate to consider deletion to be about "there must never be an article at this title") Phil Sandifer 16:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

On a related issue, why are we doing salt-the-earth "do not recreate this page" notes for a page with only one recreation? Phil Sandifer 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably because it's a new admin. I just made a comment vaguely to that effect on his talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks to all who took the time to reply - I think a better explanation from the closing admin would have gone a long way in this case (and the "salt-the-earth" page is what brought me to doublecheck the closing votes inthe first place). My ideal solution would have been a detailed explanation of the closing admin's actions, explaining why she or he was overruling the rough consensus guideline, or for the AfD to be closed as "no consensus" and then getting a clear delete majority at the soon-to-follow re-AfD :). For the record, this page was originally created to prevent edit wars on the Hero page. That page contained a list of people recognized as heroes, which of course grew into a problem, with people adding "Harry Potter" and the like. Even a section title of "people traditionally recognized as heroes" did not help - not only were certain names on the list contentious, but the list was getting too long. It's a shame about the POV problem however - I'm still reaching for a solution on how to mention *anyone* on an article about the word "hero" without running into POV problems. As someone pointed out once on a talk page, it could be a valuable list, as far as being able to see who cultures other than your own might consider as heroes. Turnstep 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science

This article is related to the discussion immediately below. Michael added it to the discussion header of that discussion but I'm breaking it out as a separate discussion because I think the fact-base for this article is significantly different from the facts (and the possible conclusion) of the list below.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 Nov 05. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science. During the discussion, the copyright holder came forward and requested deletion. One user did offer an opinion that the list is inherently uncopyrightable. That point was disputed in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as a no-consensus decision on 28 Nov 05.

Unfortunately, I believe that the copyright of the original list was enforceable because the list was not a mere collection of publicly available information. The list of Recipients of the National Medal of Science was filtered for ethnicity by the copyright holder, cross-referenced with other information, etc. (See the AFD discussion for the rest of his claims.)

We have always held that correction of copyright violations supersede AFD's discretionary decisions. I deleted the article in accordance with my understanding of Misplaced Pages:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Jinfo list that it supposedly is copied from? All it has is names and date of award, with some footnotes about Jewishness. Name and date of award is purely factual information, not copyrightable under Feist v. Rural (it's facts, not public availability, that matters here, and ethnicity too is factual). The list here was arranged differently, alphabetical rather than chronological, and has been ever since the first version of the list, so it's not a copy of Jinfo's arrangement of the names. The text of the list also adds considerable useful information that apparently is not copied.

For good reason, articles for deletion is not the place to deal with copyright problems. So it's not surprising that nobody was in position to make the right counterarguments. --Michael Snow 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Three questions:
  1. Are the other lists that User:Jinfo says are copyvios going to end up here? If so, we should probably treat them all at once.
  2. Is it clear that these lists are derived from the Jinfo pages? As a speculative exercise, I can imagine that User:84.228.75.134 saw the lists at jinfo.org, thought it would be a good idea if WP were to have similar lists, and painstakingly put together the lists without further consulting the jinfo.org lists.
  3. As a matter of interest, what is the policy for challenging copyvio deletions? Is contacting Misplaced Pages:Designated agent the only channel?--- Charles Stewart 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
     • To answer my own third question, there is also WP:CP --- Charles Stewart 20:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move review to WP:CP, per Tony's suggestion in the last review. --- Charles Stewart 20:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored it and listed it on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2005 December 13. --Michael Snow 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish scientists and philosophers

Longstanding article tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was a blatant copyright infringement created within the previous 48 hours (criterion A8, I believe that is). Then, the person who actually performed the deletion didn't even mention this bogus justification as the reason for deletion, just commented on it being a stupid list. It may be that, perhaps, but that's not grounds for speedy deletion. --Michael Snow 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I may have some of the history wrong since there appear to have been some name-changes to the article. But based on what I can see, the version which existed on 24 Nov 05 was credibly accused of being a copyvio. Evidence was presented in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science with a specific request for deletion of that article from the copyright holder. The only counter-claim made about the "Recipients of NMS" article was that the list was non-copyrightable merely because it was a list. That interpretation is, in my opinion, legally unsupportable not just in Australia (as was said in the AFD discussion) but in all major jurisdictions. Lists are copyrightable. The AFD discussion was closed on 28 Nov 05 as "no concensus". I consider that decision to have been in error but I think it was probably an honest mistake given the history of the article during the discussion. That discussion should have been closed early as a "confirmed copyvio" governed not by the WP:CSD or even the AFD process but by the WP:CV process (and more specifically, Misplaced Pages:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation).

Having, I think, resolved the "Recipients of NMS" article, we can turn to the allegation by user:StabRule that this list is derivative of the copyvio list. Clearly, the article was mistagged. The speedy-copyvio notice did not apply. However, the regular copyvio notice may have applied. While the first version was sorted differently and wikified, there were many points of similarity with the copyvio text. There were also some points of difference. It is possible that the lists were developed independently but certainly there was cause to question the text. The fact that the deleting admin didn't specifically cite the copyvio in the reason for deletion but instead called it a "stupid list" might be cause for a comment on his/her Talk page about WP:CIVILITY but does not invalidate the deletion if he/she were convinced that this was a confirmed copyvio. Given the confusion, I could support a decision to undelete and immediately investigate as a regular copyright violation. However, I also note that the versions created since 25 Nov 05 are not recreations of the deleted content and are a safe start to re-building the article. At this point, it might be best to leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a derivative of the National Medal of Science list, if you look at the history that one is quite recent and this one significantly predates it. The regular process for copyright problems would be fine; my contention is that we're dealing with factual information and Feist v. Rural applies. --Michael Snow 07:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please note: Michael's comments below were added during an edit conflict as I was correcting and extensively revising my inital findings. Apologies for the confusion. Rossami
  • Pardon me, are you saying this page was discussed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, or merely that it is "governed" by the process there? If it was discussed there, could you please point it out to me? Otherwise, it needs to go through that process. This is not a confirmed copyright infringement, that claim is disputed. At least one administrator disagreed with the speedy tag and removed it before the deletion was performed by someone else. This is not a simple cut-and-paste scenario of identical lists, if there was any copying it may well involve only factual information (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). It looks to me like an out-of-process speedy deletion that didn't get the necessary deliberation. --Michael Snow 06:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do mean that the "Recipients of NMS" article's decision was "governed by" the copyvio rules. I do not know of any discussion on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems but a different set of steps are followed if we receive a request for deletion directly from the copyright holder. Listing for 10 days is not required (or even, I believe, allowed) in that case. The copyvio of the "Recipients" article was not disputed. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So now I'll have to add the second article to my request, since you've just speedy deleted it after the debate was closed as "no consensus". --Michael Snow 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Update: The person claiming to hold the copyright to the deleted version of this page did point us to the eleven sub-pages of http://www.jinfo.org/. I'd overlooked them before. They do appear to substantiate his claim that the Misplaced Pages list was a compilation of copies of his lists. Rossami (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• As a copyright problem, strictly speaking this falls neither under the deletion policy not the undeletion policy but under the copyright policy, which for entirely understandable reasons has to somewhat more aggressive--we don't want a situation where there is a consensus to keep a copyright infringement. If you take it to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, people with skill in that area are more likely to see it and comment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. Nandesuka 17:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move review to WP:CP per Tony. Do the same with all the other AfDs created following jinfo's complaints. --- Charles Stewart 20:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored it and listed it on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2005 December 13. --Michael Snow 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SHOCKINIS

Speedy deleted presumably. I don't see why wikipedia users shouldn't be able to look these up. Content was: SHOCKINIS are 3&1/4 inch customizable pre-assembled mini block action figures.Shockinis can be customized with stickers as well as paint and clay... Kappa 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete unless the rest of the content makes clear a reason for speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD Google appears to confirm the existence of these, and the grounds for speedy are not obvious. Send it to AfD for a full discussion. Xoloz 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undeleted - at a correct article title, Shockini. FCYTravis 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• There already was an afd, for a fuller article including everything in the current iteration, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shockini. Nothing appears wrong with that afd. The current version should be deleted in accordance with it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (or, more precisely, should have been kept deleted). Shockini and SHOCKINI are both substantial recreations of content already deleted in an AfD, per Cryptic. And why the assumption that the deletion was out-of-process, just because you couldn't immediately find evidence? -- SCZenz 11:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very likely, the assumption was made because it was thought the deleting admin would be thorough enough to mention the AfD in the log. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Xoloz 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redeleted. This could have been avoided with a deletion summary pointing to the previous AFD. I think the undeletion was made with the best intentions however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  I concur completely, and I think I should make clear that my remark above wasn't intended to imply otherwise. That being said, Deletion Review should be allowed some time for discussion before an undeletion or other change is made, unless the situation is very clear-cut. -- SCZenz 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per AFD - Tεxτurε 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not that it would have necessarily caused the closer in the original AfD to draw a different conclusion, but he miscounted the votes. There were three non-discounted keep votes, not just two: User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Kzollman and User:Cnwb. -- DS1953 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid AfD. Undeletion because you don't like the way the deleting admin worded his reasoning is solely WP:POINT. User:Zoe| 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. The admin who initially speedied SHOCKINIS didn't reference the afd discussion, and there's no reason to think the undeleting admin noticed it. I'm not in the habit of checking for past afds at titles I'm moving articles to, either. —Cryptic (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith on the part of the deleting admin. You might ask them before undeleting, but that wouldn't be the proper agenda, would it? User:Zoe| 02:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Zoe Jtkiefer ---- 08:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Texture and AFD. Nandesuka 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and Redirect to action figures. --Pat 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted valid process. Eusebeus 10:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

December 8, 2005

Southern Ivies

This was last discussed on AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivies, with the result a no-consensus keep. However, it was earlier discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League with the result being recorded as a delete. After this delete it was undeleted or recreated (I'm not quite sure which) and moved to the name "Southern Ivies". Then on 2 December 2005 User:Enochlau deleted this with the note "See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League - slipped through net" and the redirect at Southern Ivy League was later speedied as a redir to a nonexistent page. The deletion was done in spite of comments on the talk page referencing the second AfD discussion. I have undeleted both the article and the redir. I am bringing this here for comment on this action, and to document that this has been undeleted in process, in hopes of avoiding any future misunderstandings about this article. I have no strong feelings about the article itself, and I'm not sure how I would vote if it were re-nominated on AfD. DES 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Southern Ivies has been here before, and it was resubmitted for a second AfD, which did not reach consensus. Your action was perfectly in keeping with the second AfD, and (of course) the later AfD governs the article's fate. So, Endorse DES. Xoloz 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The article was moved during AfD by Snowspinner with the edit comment "(Southern Ivy League moved to Southern Ivies: Better mirrors Public Ivies)" which also makes sense since there has never been any Southern Ivy League. The present article is very different from the article at the time it was moved, and the votes in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League refer to it in that form, which probably explains the difference in the votes.

• • FWIW, I tend to keep a mental log of irregularities caused by the "pro-IAR" admins at DVR. Although I recall that Snowspinner did jump the gun a bit, his move was validated in process by subsequent discussions. I don't consider any process violation here substantial. Xoloz 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with DES that the AFDs have been irregularly handled. Please relist with a full explanation of the deletion history of this concept so viewers can decide with context. --DDG 19:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• The undeletion was entirely sensible, the deletion presumably a mistake, the report here a simple courtesy. It can be speedily unlisted as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to re-AfD it, and no case for a reverse-AfD on Deletion Review. -Splash 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like a case of Enochlau mistaking the article for something CSD G4-able, but if he deleted Southern I vies, why is Special:Undelete/Southern Ivies blank? What page was deleted, when and what reason was given? --- Charles Stewart 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Special:Undelete is empty if there are no revisions to undelete (confusingly — it's not the same thing as the deletion log). You need to look here instead. -Splash 20:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that the two special pages give different results, but I can't figure out why Special:Undelete is empty: you can't delete an empty page, so why don't the deleted edits show? --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Got it: only edits that are still deleted are shown on Special:Undelete. Bit slow today. --- Charles Stewart 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is also unfortunate that there is no way for someone who undeletes to enter a reason in the log, or if there is a way i don't know how to do that. DES 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a case where I think that editing old AfD discussions is a good thing, to note the existence of new discussions. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks to DES for doing just this. --- Charles Stewart 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• To be clear, I brought this here largely as a courtesy, adn to clearly document what I had done. I think that the deletion was a simple mistake, that User:Enochlau found the first AfD discussion and believed that the deletion had somehow never been carried out. It is unusual to have two separate Afd discussins on the same article within 2 weeks of each other, and still more unusual when the two discussins are about the same article but under different names, with different results. But that is what happened in this case. As to whether this is a worthy article or not, i take no stand, and this is not really the place to discuss it. i merely wanted to notify the community of my action in undeleting, and give people a chance to indicate if the thought this action was in any way improper, and to document these actions for the future. If anyone now (or in the future) thinks this article should be removed from wikipedia, it can be re-nominated for AfD in the usual way, although links to the past debates would be a good idea IMO if this is done. DES 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It probably was. I think (if my memory serves) I was roaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and this page was tagged as speedy for having slipped through net, with a link to the AfD page which said "delete", so it seemed like a pretty clear case to delete. I don't recall seeing a link to the other AfD discussion that said "keep", but since that has come to light, of course, the deletion must have been a mistake then. I apologise for any inconvenience. Enochlau 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, there's nothing here to argue about. I shouldn't have fussed about renominating it for AfD. I've trimmed my way-too-long comments above. Everyone acted reasonably. Maybe we can have a big group hug and just forget it? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• (hug) Enochlau 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• There is no need to bring it here for review; it was an out-of-process deletion. If the administrator tries deleting it again, just explain the situation until he stops trying to speedy and either gives up or takes it to AfD (which is the proper place for discussing whether to delete an article). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• It was an unusual situation which in my view needed more attention to help avoid similar actions in ignorance of the facts in future. Also I think it is in genral much better, when overriding another aministrator's action, to disclose the mattter is some public forum in case the community feels the mater was handled poorly. I do not belive in the sort of unilateralism that some seem to. I am perfectly willing to offer hugs to anyone involved, i agree that User:Enochlau acted reasoanbley based on what he knew. DES 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

December 3, 2005

List of Muslims in business

This was recently closed by fuddlemark as "no consensus"; the AfD page is here. I count six votes for deletion and two for keeping. The closing admin states that "the comments seemed generally sympathetic to the article, and User:Durova, while advocating deletion, conceded that if the content could be better-restricted, the article would be worth keeping". This is fully misreading consensus. The article was listed as part of the effort to get rid of the more unreasonable Lists of professionals with a certain religious affiliation. Durova sums up the consensus in his statement: "We've been moving toward a consensus per WP:NOT that lists of religion/ethnicity and profession are notable when the two are demonstrably linked", and all votes to delete echo the sentiment. Pilatus 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would have closed this as a delete. But, we all have different ideas of consensus. Calling it "no consensus" isn't blatantly unreasonable. Before bringing it here, I'd have discussed it with the closing admin and seen if he was willing to reconsider. Friday (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I understand Mark's reasoning it just isn't the consensus that had emerged from debates in the previous days such as this (note Durova's statement!) and this. The job of the closing admin is to gauge consensus, not to impose his version of it. Pilatus 16:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but there's a thin line between an admin imposing his version of consensus, and making his own judgement about consensus. This illustrates one problem with Afd- it's pretty much random who closes things, and different people can have vastly different views on what's consensus. I don't see that just being an admin makes one good at such judgements. I've seen some admins who are very good at it, and some who are not. Of course, it's easy for me to say that consensus was judged incorrectly in this case, since to me this article clearly needs to be deleted. We could have a panel of people who look at close Afds and decide how to close them instead of just one individual, but then we'd be adding yet another bizarre ritual to our already-bizarre deletion process. And, of course, some people think that the minute it's remotely debatable how to close an Afd, this makes it a "keep" by default. Closing things that way results in keeping a lot of unverifiable junk, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to know what User:Pilatus thinks he means when he accuses me of "imposing his own version of ". I'd like to assure Pilatus that I am very well aware of Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators, having read through it and finding it a "gripping thriller of a read, from page 1 right until the end; you'll not be able to put it down, and the surprise twist will shock you!" (you can quote me on that, for Misplaced Pages 1.0). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I said this above. Asking people to tighten the focus of this list is laudable, yet at odds with the opinion of those who had discussed this and similar lists in the days before. Pilatus 17:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Stet. Fuddlemark gives an excellent summing up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I respect the admin's obligation to exercise judgement, but I disagree with the closer's stated rationale and I'd like to see him reconsider. I'm concerned that he's mis-characterized Durova's views in particular. -- SCZenz 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like for fudd to have some input here, I've pinged his talk page. - brenneman 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, Aaron. Not being a regular on VfU, I'd never have noticed otherwise. Re: input, I believe I explained myself well enough when closing the AfD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the closing admin's argument was well reasoned. If necessary, reopen discussion for 5 days. Also, please review the recent discussion on List of Jewish Americans and related articles. 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyna (talk • contribs)
• BTW as far as the content goes, to me this is pretty clearly not a keeper. I've started a discussion on the talk page about why I think this is so, since some people don't like discussion of the merits of the article here at DRV. Friday (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• While I disagree strongly with the general premise made during the discussion that these "list of..." articles are intrinsically valuable, that point was not rebutted during the debate. There was sufficient justification to support the closer's decision to override the strict vote-count. Endorse decision but without prejudice against renomination after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto Friday and Rossami. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• To me, this is a good example of how Afd/Drv stifles the process of achieving consensus. I believe almost anyone engaging in rational discourse on the talk page would come to agreement that this content isn't encyclopedic. However, Afd has this silly 5 day tradition, and the equally silly "whoever happens to close it gets their version of consensus" idea. Although a few people disagreed with the closing, people aren't disagreeing strongly enough to overturn. So the question is, how do we fix this without causing people to scream that we've abused the process and having it brought back to deletion review again? What period of time is sufficient to wait and Afd again? And why bother waiting, are we assuming the article will improve? That seems unlikely, as the objections being brought up are about the topic rather than something easily fixable. If consensus emerges on the talk page that this should go away, would anyone object to it being deleted without another Afd? Friday (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Such consensus won't emerge on the talk page any more than it did in the AfD. -Splash 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn Close (delete). The consensus to delete is clear, here, IMOP. final votes are 6:2 for deletion. One person stated that he would "like" a reason to vote keep, but wasn't ready to do so. Even if you include this, that still makes it 6:3, still a probable delete (although not nearly as clear cut). True, one user indicted that a change in the inclusion rules would change his vote, which was a clear invitation to others to edit the page to change those rules. But no one accepted that invitation. If recreated with different rules, that would IMO not be "substantially similar" and so could have a renewed deletion debate. DES 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - There may have been sympathetic opinions towards the article, but I am against having things categorised by race/religion/ethnicity. - Hahnchen 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/delete. The system is already prejudiced towards retaining useless stuff, having admins overturn what is a pretty clear consensus on a whim should not be so readily tolerated. It seems one "excellent" reason for keeping was allowed to outweigh many reasons for deleting, and that reason basically boils down to "one useless, unmaintainable list has gotten too long, useless, and unmaintainable; we need many more". Far from "excellent", in my book. While I don't oppose all lists on principle, I find they are magents for vandalism which often goes undetected, as random guy adds any random name to the list without explanation. Does anyone check to see if those redlinks are people of encyclopedic value? Does Nemur Kirdar, who apparently has something to do with venture capital, warrant mention in an encyclopedia? As for the bluelinks, I clicked 5, and 3 of the articles had serious problems (Bijan is a redirect to given name). Is it just me or does it seem like as wikipedia gets bigger it's actually getting worse? -R. fiend 16:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

November 29, 2005

Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised

Could the circumstance of the deletion of the carefully and multiple source documented Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised “piece” be brought up for discussion? A few reviewers have been constantly deleting this contribution, then alleging that when the article is replaced by another that there have been multiple postings. It does not appear that these reviewers are sufficiently knowledgeable and thus objective about the subject. However, one could readily infer, because of these reviewers allegations of lack of a neutral point of view (a matter of some difficulty given the political circumstances of that island) that the sub rosa or even subconscious intent of these reviewer is essentially political. El Jigüe 11/29/05

• , second half. Since then, you added references, I'll admit that. It's plainly a POV screed, however, just as it was before, right down to the words, and is now under its fourth or fifth different title, not counting talk: pages. I endorse all the deletions. If restored, take directly to AfD. -Splash 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the matter of POV is in the eye of the beholder. This article is on espionage and other intelligence matters thus by necessity reflects the overt views of the sources used and the clandestine nature of the actions involved. However, the article uses both Castro government and exile sources, as well as numerous other contributions. As to the matter of revisions, the article was and is in constant update. El Jigüe 11/29/05

In addition, this article covers almost 500 years of Cuban history El Jigüe 11/29/05

• Keep deleted. Original AfD for the original article here. --Deathphoenix 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Death have you read the latest much improved and expanded version? Or are you basing your decision on first draft El Jigüey 11/30/05

• No, I was basing it on what I could see as a regular user, not an admin. I'll take a look at the now-undeleted article at my convenience and vote on AfD. (not undeleted, not sure what I'm smoking) --Deathphoenix 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's sourced now, although the POV issue still remains. Since it doesn't qualify as a G4 speedy anymore, relist to have more eyes go over it and perhaps fix it. Titoxd 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete -- sourcing the article is a major change, if POV/verifiability is the major claim against the article. Since there appears to be agreement that this has taken place, undelete. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. At present I am trying to untangle the dramatic assassination of Mella in light of considerable additional information most especially:

Ross, Marjorie 2004 El secreto encanto de la KGB: las cinco vidas de Iósif Griguliévich editorial Farben/Norma, Costa Rica

this is causing some delay in presenting a more complete version. However, if I can get a few more positive votes I will re-post with a "challenged" caveat El Jigüe 12-1-05

The revision of the Mella assassination has been done. Tito (yes your namesake is mentioned) thanks El Jigüe 12-2-05

• Keep deleted. This was deleted under Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion as a re-creation of a previously deleted article; this same article has been re-created under at least five different titles and other articles have also had duplicates created, often with unsuitable titles (eg, Enrique Ros was duplicated as the now-deleted ISBN 1593880472), possibly as an attempt to spam search engines. See discussion at Talk:Cuban_espionage_and_related_extraterritorial_activity_revised#Deletion_of_this_article. Note in particular that this user does not accept basic Misplaced Pages principles such as WP:NPOV, and also does not even accept the GFDL, under which all contributions to Misplaced Pages (including his own) are released. The latter is especially significant: if he doesn't accept the GFDL he should not contribute anything at all. He writes magazine articles and polemical essays (or term papers), not encyclopedia entries. Attempts to explain the basics of how Misplaced Pages operates (WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages:No original research, etc) are met with rambling persecution fantasies. For what it's worth, he also edits talk pages by inserting his own comments (without attribution) in the middle of other people's comments, and edits other people's comments by adding "(sic)" after their typos. Note also that a previous deletion review failed: see .-- Curps 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment. He is also "internally spamming" this article by linking to it from a dozen other articles (even unrelated articles such as American Civil War spies !). These links are accomplished in a clumsy way: for instance, this is one of his sentences:

Castro alleges that defense is the only reason he has implemented aggressive Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised from the 1960s to the present day.

He is also still creating duplicate articles: see Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact and Culture clash pathologies, and spamming them with internal links from other Misplaced Pages articles. -- Curps 02:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

comment: perhaps the article is to broad for some people (because it seems to include a sub-category within its title). (Paradoxilly that makes the article more specific, right?) Anyway, sugestion: Perhaps the original author would be best to have a more general term such as cuban espionage. This could be part of the Espionage#Spies in various conflicts article. The extrateritorial activities could be mentioned within the cuban espionage article, giving it some substance. (perhaps a link to the cuban crisis would be interesting?) --Pat 14:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. List of The Daily Show correspondent titles: relisted. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show correspondent titles (2nd nomination). 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Mixed: out of scope. 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Supermarket skin and Exogenous xeroderma modo: deletion endorsed. 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
4. BORED: deletion endorsed. 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
5. SCinet and Storcloud rewritten and copyvio resolved elsewhere. 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Mythics: no consensus overturned to deletion, and deleted by original admin. 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
7. CustomerVision speedy restored, taken to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CustomerVision. 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Brian Walters: moot; rewritten, and speedied history undeleted. 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
9. PotterCast/Pottercast: undeleted, merged to The Leaky Cauldron (website) and retained as redirects - histories overlap so history merge not possible without disrupting the diffs. 23:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Islamonazism: deletion endorsed, redirect not discussed but belongs on RfD. 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Image:First Standard.jpg: can't restore images. 23:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Reirom: deletion endorsed (protected with {{deletedpage}}). 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Richard Gregg: undeletion endorsed. 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Mike Lorek Fan Club: deletion closure endorsed. 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Sholom Keller: deletion closure endorsed. 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Tzmerth shmarya: deletion closure endorsed. 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
17. List of modern day dictators: no consensus closure endorsed. 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Mental Imagery: kept deleted. 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Image:Cobbstealing3rd.jpg: recovered. 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Robert of Basevorn: recreation ok'd, now on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Form of Preaching (2nd nomination). 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Body parts slang: kept deleted (protected with {{deletedpage}}). 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Image talk:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg: restored. 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Wessex Hall: seems to have been recreated. 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. 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.

Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

List of gags in the Naked Gun series

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of gags in the Naked Gun series

I'm not asking for an undeletion as such, but for the content to be copied over to the three movie articles, under a trivia section perhaps. Many movie articles on wikipedia have trivia sections which cover this sort of thing. Astrokey44 11:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've moved this request to the content review section, where I think it belongs. --- Charles Stewart 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the blurb just up there says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and this feels like working it back in through th back door. -Splash 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's gross process fetishisation over product - David Gerard 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The material was rejected by AfD, but it was not rejected by the editors/readers of the individual movie articles (who might be able to present compelling justification for its inclusion in a different form). Editors/readers of the list were invited to participate in the AfD discussion (via the notice that appeared on the page), but editors/readers of the individual movie articles were not. Therefore, the decision to exclude this content should be applied to the former, but not to the latter. —Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to amplify that a deletion decision at AFD explicitly does NOT mean that the information in that article should not be in Misplaced Pages at all. What it means, at most, is that a separate article for that information has been considered undesirable. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Splash. Re-posting deleted material under a different heading is bad. If there was a consensus to do so people would have voted to merge/redirect. Do not undelete and paste. -R. fiend 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it. Its just because it has a separate article. At least copy the relevant sections to the talk pages of the movie articles so it can go through the normal process of reverts/additions etc. to determine what should be included Astrokey44 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see any harm in userfying the contents over to Astrokey44's user page temporarily, so he can pick portions of it to use in other articles, as found suitable. There was no copyright violation or offensive material in the deleted article. As admins, Splash, R. fiend and I have access to that text. I don't see any justification for denying Astrokey44 the opportunity to view a copy of it for his reference. The decision which parts are suitable as trivia for the movie articles is a separate issue, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if he/she does choose to use any parts of it in another article, you have just made it much more complicated to meet our obligations under GFDL to preserve attribution history. What's done is done but in the future I would prefer that we wait until the discussion is complete before making such moves. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The attribution requirement can be met quite simply: one just links to the userfied page in the edit summary, citing it is a source. No need for fancy admin interventions, even if they result in a nicer reading edit history. --- Charles Stewart 23:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't done anything yet. What I am proposing is that I undelete the page, move it to User:Astrokey44/List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and re-delete the resulting redirect in List of gags in the Naked Gun series. The resulting userfied page would have the full history per GFDL, but List of gags in the Naked Gun series would stay deleted as per the AfD. Eventually the userfied page would also be deleted, but any admin would be able to trace the full history. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That would not likely be a viably transparent route to the history per the GFDL, which does not elevate Wiki admins above everyone else... You'd have to leave the userfied article undeleted. -Splash 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I see no harm in simply undeleting the history of List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and leaving the page protected as a redirect to The Naked Gun. Let's not get bogged down in bureaucracy. —Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't it be easier to just post each of the 3 sections on the talk pages of movies 1, 2 and 3? or even easier post them all on the talk page of the first one Astrokey44 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • To answer Charles above, no, moving the text to a userpage and then linking to the userfied page would not be sufficient. Contribution history must be traceable back to the original contributor, not merely to Astrokey44. The full version would have to remain (as OwenX proposed) but as Splash points out, could not ever be deleted. That would defeat the intent of the AFD decision. To answer Astrokey44, yes, we could post the sections but you'd also have to cut-and-paste the contribution history. Again, that would seem to defeat the intent of the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • While I understand the principle issues raised here, it seems we are making much too big a deal out of this. We've all seen larger works than this 20-line list get a cut-and-paste treatment into BJAODN, without any retention of history visible to non-admins. It wouldn't bother me, and it shouldn't offend any of the voters on the AfD if this article does end up living as a user subpage, if that's what full-transparency GFDL calls for. Fulfilling Astrokey44's request shouldn't be such a big deal. Owen× ☎ 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Wait a minute, I didnt want it to 'live' as my subpage. Its supposed to go into the articles, not be a user subpage Astrokey44|talk 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Okay, then to address your If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it, I say, yes, I, for one, would delete it in a heartbeat. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True Astrokey, you didn't ask for userfying, but the edit history of the article needs to be retained per the GFDL. Userfication was given as a suggestion for a place to point to in order comply with the GFDL and give the originators their credit. - Mgm| 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent idea. The article should not have been deleted in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

Thomasine Church

This was deleted as unverifiable (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church), but has since been redirected to Saint Thomas Christians by Clinkophonist, who isn't very impressed with us 'delete' voters. I would like the history to be replaced, in case there is any useful content and because I'd like to see if there is anything we can learn from this apparent mistake. Kappa 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support Very wise request -- I would propose undeletion except that the redirect is to a better name, per Elaine Pagels ''Beyond Belief'' at least. Yay for Kappa. Xoloz 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry. For both Kappa and me, this is a case of "non-admin can't see content." You know, I have no desire to join admin ranks, but that one feature is sure handy in these discussions; another thing, I suppose, to add to the list of features for an intermediate permission level, if it ever arises.
• Recommend against. That article was complete, unverified piffle on someone's homebrew website church. Even hidden in the history it would be detrimental to the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Pilatus 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Recommend against. We have got to stop treating verifiability casually. It's supposed to be policy. The AfD looks valid. Nobody's challenged it. Clinkophonist could have cited sources at any time, but chose not to. The article was deleted as unverifiable. Why do we want to resurrect unverifiable material? If part of the article were verifiable and cited sources there'd be some point in it, but it doesn't. There is no resemblance between the article that was deleted and the article on Saint Thomas Christians. The redirect should be deleted unless there's good verifiable evidence that the name Thomasine Church is really used to refer to the Saint Thomas Christians; our article on them does not contain the word Thomasine. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• No, not unless the verifiability issues are dealt with. Someone being annoyed at having an article deleted doesn't attest to the status of the material. Kappa's original link, which was good evidence of non-existence clearly has a computer generated image of a church on it! The Google hits still reveal nothing that can be used as verification — watch our for mirrors. Without some basis for restoring unverfied and so-far unverfiable content, it should stay deleted. -Splash 00:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to think that the redirect should also be removed, since there is no proof that this is a common term for what it is redirecting to. Whether such a removal is within-scope here or not, I am unsure. RfD is not too great at removing redirects. -Splash 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• No. Deleting unverifiable articles is a good thing. Nandesuka 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• No, but keep the redirect as a regular editorial decision unrelated to deletion policy. A history undeletion for the purpose of merging histories is appropriate where the content is merged, but the Saint Thomas Christians article has no similarities with the deleted article, so it isn't appropriate in this case. Titoxd 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do not re-delete - the article does have references now. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm User:Zoe| 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You are looking at the target of the redirect. THe request is to restore the history behind the redirect rather than to do anything to its target. (And the word "Thomasine" doens't appear in your reference, which is another good reason to keep it deleted.) -Splash 02:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood what the discussion was here. Okay, keep deleted any article which is not sourced, has been AFD'd, and which the creator refuses to source. User:Zoe| 02:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the original article had serious verifiability issues, as was fully explored during the AfD debate, and was very likely either vanity (a "church" with perhaps one or two members) or some sort of hoax. I also don't think the redirect is particularly helpful, as it seems to be unrelated to the subject of the original article, though that's a matter for Redirects for deletion I suppose. Keep this deleted, unverifiable information does not help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• If anyone is to be unimpressed, it should be everyone else who is to be unimpressed with Clinkophonist, who owes several editors an apology. See Talk:Thomasine Church. Uncle G 06:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the above. this should be kept safely out of harm's way. Do not restore. Eusebeus 10:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm restoring these items from the history. They refer not to Nasranis, but to a small sect formed by a Catholic-raised chap who calls himself Mar Didymos, based in Pennsylvania. There's absolutely no harm in having the information in the history and it may (or may not) be a good idea to have a few words in the main article to distinguish the Nasranis (who use the term Thomasine Church and claim a direct link, via a convocation in 1918, with the remnants of the Thomasine church in India, from these other fellows sho seem to derive their philosophy from traditional teachings about Thomas. We can't really decide whether or not to do that while the items remain deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Restoring unverifiable material removed by AfD is verging on the unforgivable. Add your mention to the article. Leave unverifiable stuff in the bin. If it is indeed unverifiable, then it has no editorial value. -Splash 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. This action directly defies the strong consensus formed above that this material should not be restored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I removed the history, leaving the two revisions from 11 Dec that are redirects. You don't just get to restore unverifiable material removed by a legitimate AfD and with a crystal clear discussion here that it not be restored. Inclusionism and deletionism aside, verfiability is non-neogtiable: and un-V material is of no more use in a merge than in a full article. The inclusion of such material is not an editorial decision. The inclusion of a mention of him/them is a different question. -Splash 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorely tempted to make a history undeletion request on John Seigenthaler Sr. too, so everyone can see whether there's anything useful in the deleted portions. Pinocchio 23:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Don't do it, Pin! Bad-faith, WP:POINT, WP:BEANS... Jiminy Cricket 34:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I just said I was tempted, Jim... Pinocchio 45:67, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, we did decide back in October what to do with the article, that is to delete it for lack of verifiability, a core tenet of Misplaced Pages, as you know. Do assume that others know how to work Google as well as you do, and start respecting consensus. Your political goals are second to the reputation of the encyclopedia. Pilatus 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's complete nonssense. The editing history of nearly every single article on Misplaced Pages is choc full of unverifiable material. Moreover I see no reason to describe the material that are being unreadonably withheld from undeletion as in any way unverifiable. It's heavily slanted towards representing the claims to the Thomasine Church as fact, but is a fair representation of the claims made on the church's own website, which is owned by an identifiable individual with an address in Pennsylvania. As history undeletions are not withheld without very good reason, I shall undelete again. Please do not delete the material again; the presence of the material in the history of this article does not compromises the integrity of Misplaced Pages and may be useful to some editors wishing to write on this strain of gnosticism. And do please read the undeletion policy, particularly the section that says "History only" undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page, and don't need to be kept for a full ten days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Tony, please stop the wheel war right here. The article has been rejected both by AfD and DRV as unsuitable. If the Seigenthaler hoax has taught us anything it's the need for proper sourcing. Armed with your data from the article's history, feel free to write a new entry on Mar Didymos' church, complete with verifiable sources that prove that it is more than the website of a chap with a funny hairdo in a priestly habit. Pilatus 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• History only undelete - I find this referencing of Sigenthaler to be inappropriate. Nobody has rasied any suggestion that the contents of the history places WP in legal jeopardy. Noone has raised any credible suggestion of harm associated with having the history available. ---