| Revision as of 04:07, 14 May 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits kd← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:17, 14 May 2006 edit undo68.107.142.66 (talk) →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| * '''Overturn and Undelete''' | * '''Overturn and Undelete''' | ||
| *] May 2006 closed early as the article was deleted | *] May 2006 closed early as the article was deleted | ||
| There isn't a CSD that this article falls under so ''' |
There isn't a CSD that this article falls under so '''Undelete and Protect'''. ] 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :''' |
:'''Undelete and Protect'''. It's been deleted twice before (just in AFDs; check the deletion history and you'll see that something like over 15 different admins have deleted it at various times), and the third (!) AFD was definitely trending towards delete, to say nothing of the subject's unimportance, difficulty of verification, and other such considerations. --] ] ] 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *''' |
*'''Undelete and Protect'''. This article has now been deleted twenty times by over fifteen separate admins and three or four AfDs - which must be some kind of record. ] 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *''' |
*'''Undelete and Strong Protect''' per the above. This would be an A7 speedy anyway: being a mild annoyance to online gamers is not an assertation of notability. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep deleted''': This thing ''again?'' Good heavens, what does it take? I have no idea how the deletion was overturned, don't want to know, but let's just say that getting properly deleted twice ought to be enough for anyone. Remember, authors: the presence of an article on Misplaced Pages doesn't make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. ] 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep deleted''': This thing ''again?'' Good heavens, what does it take? I have no idea how the deletion was overturned, don't want to know, but let's just say that getting properly deleted twice ought to be enough for anyone. Remember, authors: the presence of an article on Misplaced Pages doesn't make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. ] 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Can't we ''' |
*Can't we '''Undelete and Protect''' or something? Nothing has changed since it was last deleted that would warrant redeletion. ~]]] 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **I recommend against |
**I recommend against deletion. Several respected editors did support undeletion at the 1st DRV. Though I find the close of it flawed, these editors should be given a chance to speak. ] 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep deleted''' per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the 1st DRV (which I somehow missed) came to an inappropriate conclusion. The discussion included several editors apparently drawn to DRV specifically for the purpose of promoting this article; these editors should have been more heavily questioned and possibly discounted. Although the 2nd AfD was improperly closed early in consideration of the 1st DRV, I cannot endorse the closure of the 1st DRV on the merits or on the basis of the record, an uncomfortable position. I'm not sure whether a suggestion to vacate the previous DRV means anything, but that is, in effect, what I support doing. ] 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep deleted''' per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the 1st DRV (which I somehow missed) came to an inappropriate conclusion. The discussion included several editors apparently drawn to DRV specifically for the purpose of promoting this article; these editors should have been more heavily questioned and possibly discounted. Although the 2nd AfD was improperly closed early in consideration of the 1st DRV, I cannot endorse the closure of the 1st DRV on the merits or on the basis of the record, an uncomfortable position. I'm not sure whether a suggestion to vacate the previous DRV means anything, but that is, in effect, what I support doing. ] 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Undelete and Protect'''If people keep mucking it up so bad, why don't we just put it back the way it was and close it from being edited? | |||
| ] 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:17, 14 May 2006
myg0t
- VFD Aug 2004 Delete
- AFD March 2005 Delete
- First DRV Overturn and Undelete
- 2nd AFD May 2006 closed early as the article was deleted
There isn't a CSD that this article falls under so Undelete and Protect. Kotepho 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and Protect. It's been deleted twice before (just in AFDs; check the deletion history and you'll see that something like over 15 different admins have deleted it at various times), and the third (!) AFD was definitely trending towards delete, to say nothing of the subject's unimportance, difficulty of verification, and other such considerations. --maru (talk) contribs 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and Protect. This article has now been deleted twenty times by over fifteen separate admins and three or four AfDs - which must be some kind of record. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and Strong Protect per the above. This would be an A7 speedy anyway: being a mild annoyance to online gamers is not an assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted: This thing again? Good heavens, what does it take? I have no idea how the deletion was overturned, don't want to know, but let's just say that getting properly deleted twice ought to be enough for anyone. Remember, authors: the presence of an article on Misplaced Pages doesn't make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. Geogre 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can't we Undelete and Protect or something? Nothing has changed since it was last deleted that would warrant redeletion. ~MDD4696 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I recommend against deletion. Several respected editors did support undeletion at the 1st DRV. Though I find the close of it flawed, these editors should be given a chance to speak. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the 1st DRV (which I somehow missed) came to an inappropriate conclusion. The discussion included several editors apparently drawn to DRV specifically for the purpose of promoting this article; these editors should have been more heavily questioned and possibly discounted. Although the 2nd AfD was improperly closed early in consideration of the 1st DRV, I cannot endorse the closure of the 1st DRV on the merits or on the basis of the record, an uncomfortable position. I'm not sure whether a suggestion to vacate the previous DRV means anything, but that is, in effect, what I support doing. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and ProtectIf people keep mucking it up so bad, why don't we just put it back the way it was and close it from being edited?