Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 26 November 2009

25 November 2009

Kiss All the Boys

Kiss All the Boys (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the article was deleted, more reliable reviews of the book have been found, making the book meet WP:BK#1. The closing administrator when approached about undeleting the page advised me that he felt it would be safer to seek a more binding decision via DRV. Malkinann (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the deleted version has almost no salvagable content anyway. Why not just make a new version in your user space, then move it to article space once its ready, so its not tainted with Aurura's meat puppetry stuff in its history. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what was in the article originally, but if it was anything like Future Lovers (manga), which seems to have been created in the same way, it may have contained an infobox (which I am weak on) and information about the Japanese publisher (which is difficult to search for). --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow recreation but do not restore. The original article was advertspam created by the publisher to promote the book and the publisher. There is absolutely no point in restoring that "taint" when the article can be recreated from scratch with a clean edit history. —Farix (t | c) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tonal problems with the article can be fixed, as the editing process guides articles to higher levels of quality through time. --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want the original advertspam restored instead of simply recreating the article from scratch? There is nothing to be gained from it nor are there any requirements under GFDL requiring the article history to be restored if its going to be completely recreated. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what was in the article originally - I did not have Internet access when the matter came up in January. I am guessing that it resembles the deleted version of Future Lovers (manga) in that it will probably have an infobox and information about the Japanese publisher. This makes it easier to work with than a blank article, as I can append a Reception section and rework the tone. If it's sufficiently notable to have a recreated article, why shouldn't the old information be restored so that I can work from it? --Malkinann (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't think we should give credit to the publisher's sockpuppets/meetpuppets, especially when there is no need to. There are other resources you can use to look up the Japanese publisher. In fact, I was very easily able to find it within a few seconds just by checking ANN's encyclopedia entry. Now all you have to do is double check the Japanese publisher's website or obtain an ISBN code from a retail site to verify the information. —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather use the old version of the article, as I hope to be able to glean information and formatting from it, and it is easier to tweak an existing article than to create an entirely new one. If the subject matter is notable, why does it matter that the original version was made by Aurora? Notability problems have been resolved. Tonal problems related to the article being partially from publishers' copy are easily resolvable. --Malkinann (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore I have checked the version that was deleted and I find nothing promotional--not even problems of tone. It was deleted, in my opinion correctly, at AfD, with the arguments being insufficient references to show notability, it was not speedy deleted as promotional-- it did not meet the speedy criteria. The earliest versions, submitted by the COI editor, were also informative not promotional, though they made even less of a showing of notability. I see no reason whatsoever in policy to not restore the article, since we do not delete articles merely because of COI--attempts to do so have not been accepted by the community. Valid reasons not to restore the history if the article can be improved would be copyvio, defamation, BLP violations, or vandalism (I may have missed something, but COI is not one of them). If there is no consensus for that, I will certainly email it. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore No matter who stated the article, it'd have some valid information, facts about it which would be fitting for the article. Dream Focus 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore or at the very least userfy. Editor in good standing wishing to write an article. No good reason to deny them resources that help with that (unless folks would like to write the template and restart the article rather than demanding that someone else do it).Hobit (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore, mostly per DGG and Hobit. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore, as the one who did the pre-check for animanga requested articles, there are enough evidences of for at least recreation. Moral wise, yes what the publisher of that series did was Bad but that doesn't mean all the article content was not good. So restore the article, remove whatever copyvio stuff in it & expand a reception section with the now found third party RS coverage. --KrebMarkt 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore to user space, so Malkinann can access the infobox and other basic details, while cleaning up the promo and any copyvio stuff (as I recall, all their plot summaries were copyvio) and do the appropriate expansion. When its ready, then no objections to move it to the article space. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Veil Brides

Black Veil Brides (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

More information present Hello, this would be my first time doing this so I really don't know much, but I would like to have a review on the deletion of the page, Black Veil Brides. I believe when the article was deleted, around September 2009, it was more appropriate as the band wasn't really known then, but I believe now this band is more known, especially after signing with Standby Records, with the news from the website's news section here: Standby Records signs Black Veil Brides, and their numerous YouTube videos, one of which can be seen here: Black Veil Brides "Knives and Pens" music video with over 2 million views at the time this appeal was made. I think this is subject enough to appeal the deletion of this page. cypherninja (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the page is visible in the history of User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Administrator closed after only one day, based on the weight of older AFD for article years ago. I did discuss it on his talk page. he suggesting a deletion review. Three AFD done in 2006, and one in 2007, should have no "weight" in deciding to ignore the proper process, and speedy close an AFD in November of 2009. Dream Focus 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To be accurate the last Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series related Afd was in June 2009 with Abridged_series --KrebMarkt 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. It would seem that the number of times the article has been recreated shows that at least somebody out there is interested in the subject... even if it was deleted several times several years ago in multiple AFDs. Best option is to let editors have their 7 days to improve and source the article. If they fail, the article can go yet one more time. If they succeed, the project is improved. The good faith speedy close and delete did not allow the guideline sugested time for such possible and hoped for improvements. Schmidt, 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Salting circumvention should not be encouraged, and there is not even a hint that the concerns raised in the previous AfDs have been addressed in any manner. If, following userfication, the editor has a new draft that addresses the concerns, they are free to bring that draft to DRV for its review. Tim Song (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Tim... but that was then and this was now. Deletion after one day kinda means that it was wished that no one even try during the AFD. Sure, editors might not succeed, but is it per guideline now to not even allow their efforts during the course of an AFD? As for issues, I never even heard of the article before the DRV... but then, the AFD was up and out before I knew it existed. I like rescuing articles... and have had a few successes during AFDs... but for this one... it seems that efforts to improve during the AFD were not even wanted. Schmidt, 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist Lets give the community time to weigh in on this. I have seen countless other cases similar to this one, in which the case is allowed to run the full 7 days. Ikip (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse article has been deleted and recreated numerous times. The community has already weighed in enough, and the article was fully qualified for a speedy deletion and salting. The AfD was not even necessary. Someone being "interested" in a subject is of course a ridiculous reason to overturn or relist. It is not a notable topic by any standard, just some fan video that has been regularly and repeatedly spammed here by its creator and his friends. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please, do not call me or my comments ridiculous, as such attacks are never helpful to a polite dicsussion, and I have never resorted to such in discussions of your own comments. There is no debate that the article has been to AFD in the past and that it was discussed on those occasions... However, and with the greatest of respects, the article had not been at AfD nor dicussed in detail for over 2 years. The hasty close of this one did not allow new considerations or new discussion. Yes, it may ultimately be deleted... but it is reasonable to allow the disussion to continue for the guideline suggested time. And please, if editors were not "interested" in writing or improving Misplaced Pages, there would be no Misplaced Pages. It is that "interest" that created the project and that "interest" that keeps it alive through the contributions of its thousands of volunteers. Schmidt, 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not call either you nor your comments ridiculous, only the reason. It is a fanmade YouTube video that violates copyrights that does not have notability, never has and likely never will. There are no new considerations to make. The project itself and discussions in the main article talk in the two years since have shown that there still are no other sources and that is it still the same no-name thing it was two years ago. It was not a hasty close, but a proper application of G4 for an article that has been deleted over a dozen times since the video creators and his friends first tried to spam it here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether an article is about a Youtube hit or is about highly touted blockbuster with a multimillion promotions department... an AFD closure 12 hours and 14 minutes after the AFD was opened does indeed seem a bit "hasty"... and that's why I endorse an overturn and relisting. Fact is that I personally think the article is indeed a waste of paper, and I am not here to re-argue or debate other's points from an AFD I was unaware even existed, as that is not what DRV is about. That sources might exit that could serve to improve the article (,) is not germaine to whether or not 12 hours was a tad too soon... as THAT is the question. Schmidt, 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Collectonian, do you honestly believe each time someone made an article for this, it was just spam by the creator and his friends? I find that unlikely given the fact its been years since someone tried to make an article on this, and how spread out the creations were. When millions of people watch each episode, some of them are surely Misplaced Pages editors, and will try to make an article for it. It certainly has not "been regularly and repeatedly spammed here by its creator and his friends," but instead by people who believe it notable enough to have an article for, and should've been given time to state their case. Dream Focus 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse I would have to say that this was a combination of WP:CSD#G4 and WP:SNOW. The subject has came to AfD at least 5 times previous this nomination, all resulting in deletion outcomes, and speedy deleted at least 8 other times. Out of all of the discussion at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! during and since the AfD, only one source has ever been found. However that isn't enough to recreate the article with. I think that more evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources must precede any recreation of the article. In short, a DRV with sources is needed to recreate an article on the subject. —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  No... a DRV is not a reargued AFD. It is simply a discussion as to whether or not 12 hours and 14 minutes was a bit hasty to close and delete... no matter the possible outcome. Schmidt, 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse I would normally say relist, but it might well have been a straight G4. Though consensus can change in 3 years, I can not imagine it will in this case. Closing the debate after 1 day, though, was perhaps rushing things unnecessarily. I don't think very highly of the two keep arguments during that day, but , as often is the case when editors are involved who know our procedures, cutting off the debate very early does not cut off the debate, but merely moves it here. Better to have snowed it a day or two later. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the encyclopedia has nothing to gain by continually rehashing the same debates again and again, particularly in cases such as this where consensus has been firmly established. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  With respects, "firmly established" or not, guideline allows that consensus might have changed and so allows such discussions to take place. But even if eventually found that consensus did not change, a 12 hours and 14 minutes AFD discussion held 29 15 months after the last full discussion in August 2008 is not a long enough time to know for sure. Schmidt, 00:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• overturn and relist It has been three years about a year since the previous debate. It seems advisable to have a new discussion to see if consensus has changed and whether relevant sources have shown up in the last few years. I haven't had time to look for sources in detail but there seems to be enough popularity that the creator has been invited to conventions . That suggests notability. Further discussion should thus occur in a full AfD debate. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a youtube video maker being invited to a video game convention is an indication of them being notable for this work in wikipedia terms. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion and closure of the AfD. From this list I make it eight previous AfD discussions all of which have closed with "delete". It is much less than three three years since the previous debate. The most recent was closed in 2008 August. The article that I deleted made no attempt to show notability. To DGG (see above), I see this as a review not just of my deletion but of the dozen or more deletions of this topic. — ] (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• So, if you personally don't like an article, is it alright to just declare it garbage and ignore the AFD process? I've seen many articles start off with a lot of deletes at the start, but others come in, make improvements, find sources, and the article is saved. People should be given a chance to participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• To User:RHaworth: With my having not participated in any earlier discussions, much less this one, I can only opine about the most recent closure... Yours... 12 hours and 14 minutes after the article was listed. I find no flaw in any earlier closures... closures that did allow input over a reasonable length of time. I am concerned though, over the hurried deletion of this one without awaiting or allowing input from more editors. After 5 days perhaps... perhaps even 3... but 12 hours...? Schmidt, 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse This is a joke right, we have a clear consensus on how we feel about this article and one of the keep votes was screw the rules and the other acknowledged that they hadn't found multiple sources. This would be a justifiable g4 so closing early with the weight of argument is not only appropriate but a reasonable application of WP:BURO. Spartaz 05:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes... a version was deleted in June with only 1 editor offering an opinion even after 2 relistings in the hopes of additional comments. Sme or different? I do not know... but a very fair consideration of WP:DEL. But I am not re-arguing the AFD here, as I had thought that DRV was to discuss the close, not the article. I had imagined this discussion was to be about a 12 hour discussion and delete in contradiction to the instructions of WP:DEL, and not about AfDs months or years in the past. Schmidt, 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing to stop DRV looking at the overall situation of an article and this one simply has too much history for the last AFD to be viewed in isolation. Spartaz 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse The last Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series related Afd is from 8 June 2009 which was 4 months ago and it was speedy deleted. --KrebMarkt 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is about the 12 hour closure and delete of THIS version, not about any from the past, as I have no idea what they looked like and can not and will not presume they were the same or different. A precedent being set here that AFDs with keep opinions need only be open 12 hours before a deletion, and decided based upon past AfDs will be echoing for months... which will make the next few months on Misplaced Pages quite interesting. (that last set of typo corrections was mine) Schmidt, 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse as the person who tagged it for speedy deletion this time. This has been deleted at least three times after AfD (not counting the speedy deletions), and has been salted at some of the names it was created under (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yugioh the abridged series). The new article did nothing to address the concerns in those AfDs, and I think for salted articles it is appropriate to expect a sourced version in user space before allowing recreation. Also, articles about this sort of abridged series in general have been deleted (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abridged Series, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abridged (anime)). Calathan (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse The problem isn't just the multiple speedy's and afd's that have previously occurred. It's that the article completely failed to address the concerns raised previously - namely reliability and verifiability through reliable sources. If the article had attempted to fix the issues, then I think there would be a case for reversing the decision and taking it back to AFD. However it didn't make any attempt to fix the issues with the previous articles, so I doubt consensus would have changed - as much as some people to think it would. I'm yet to see a reason why speedy deletion was inappropriate, in an afd or not. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep per strength of arguments and as Misplaced Pages:Editors matter. When an established editor who has demonstrated expertise on the subject (Dream Focus) would like more time to continue working on article, we must be considerate enough to let him do so. Misplaced Pages loses nothing by allowing that, but by contrast by just deleting, we gain nothing. Best, --A Nobody 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:CSRT-Yes

Template:CSRT-Yes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template was made to handle BLP concerns after discussions in May 2008 about how to handle the 900 Guantanamo detainees, many of whom had POV tags on their biographies because wayward editors would either write about the "terrorists faced a fair trial" or "poor innocents were raped by George Bush" (okay, not quite). So talking with Wikiproject:Templates, Wikiproject:Terrorism and a couple others, it was decided this made a compelling argument for WP:IAR, the official policy of If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.

It was proposed for deletion and closed as Keep in June (Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_2#Template:CSRT-Yes), then renominated for deletion again in September and closed as "Substitute and Delete". However, the gargantuan task of deciding on proper wording, substituting it into all articles' prose, and somehow keeping it watchlisted to avoid partisan vandalism in the future was never tackled, never even started. So two months later, I spoke to the closing admin and he said "...If you would like to have the decision changed to "keep" since no consensus can be reached, then please feel free to start a thread at WP:DRV. I can see both sides of the argument (for and against deletion), and it won't bother me if my decision is overturned. Thank you for contacting me first, and let me know if this sounds like an acceptable resolution."

I left similar messages for the other admins involved in the template's status, (User_talk:Nihonjoe#Template:CSRT-Yes and User_talk:JPG-GR/Archive_11#Template:CSRT-Yes), but neither of them responded in any fashion, or showed any continued interest.

So on the advice of the closing administrator, I am moving this to DRV and requesting that the decision be changed to "keep" (to which he has no objection) to reflect the fact he (and we) now realise two months later that it is not possible to properly enact his original suggestion of Substitute and Delete, and in keeping with the earlier Keep decisions. Sherurcij 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Michellehazelton

User:Michellehazelton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I first enquired with Admin RHaworth if the article 1E could be unprotected so that a new article could be created containing informative / non commercial information about the company 1E. I was not aware that as an employee of the company I was not allowed to create an information page, RHaworth informs me this is a CIO. I was attempting to create a company information page similar to Microsoft and BigFix for example. Please can my user page be undeleted and the 1E article be unprotected so that someone external to the company can create the article? Thank you Michellehazelton (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your draft article was not deleted, but moved to User:Michellehazelton/sandbox. I'd nearly be inclined, despite the COI, to unprotect 1E and move the draft there. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and fixed malformed DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying things up and pointing out where the article was moved to. As i'm sure you have gathered I am new to editing in wikipedia. You say you were nearly inclined to unprotect 1E. Apologies I am a little lost, are you going to unprotect 1E? Thanks from the humble newbie. 82.110.120.98 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incubate. I don't think the article in its current form is ready for the main namespace yet, but a quick google suggests that the company is potentially notable (although searching is not easy - there are lots of modules, sections, etc labelled "1E" or "1e2"). Some time at the Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator would be a higher profile location than a new contributor's userspace so as to draw more editors to the subject and thus overcome (or at least diffuse) any COI issues. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into your suggestions. 82.110.120.98 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)