Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Myg0t (second): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:41, 14 May 2006 editMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 05:42, 14 May 2006 edit undoChozo ninpo (talk | contribs)112 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
*:I don't particularly like the closure of the DRV either, but is it really so much to ask that this get an AFD? It has been over a year since the last one. There is certainly a tiny bit of notability put forth, so I don't think it fits under A7 and since it was recreated after the DRV it does not fit G4. Someone said G1 on the AFD, but that is right out unless the article had been vandalized. ] 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC) *:I don't particularly like the closure of the DRV either, but is it really so much to ask that this get an AFD? It has been over a year since the last one. There is certainly a tiny bit of notability put forth, so I don't think it fits under A7 and since it was recreated after the DRV it does not fit G4. Someone said G1 on the AFD, but that is right out unless the article had been vandalized. ] 05:36, 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? This should have never been allowed to happen. Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia.] 04:15, 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? This should have never been allowed to happen. Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia.] 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' This comment was added by an anon that also decided to change people's votes. OK they decided to log in now apparently. ] 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC) *:'''Comment''' This comment was removed due to a lack of understanding. ] 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)*:'''Comment''' Are you that desperate
*'''Undelete and Protect''' Article was improperly deleted, this time. AfD was closed less than 12 hours after it opened, and the article was speedily deleted for no apparent reason. The votes in the AfD contained both misleading information and outright lies. The administrator that deleted it, mentioned in IRC that he was biased against the group (the subject of the article), and this could have affected his better, NPOV judgement on the wikipedia article itself. It is claimed also that the article was deleted because it was "a giant flamewar", but no requests for page protection had been filed prior to this. The subject was notable, the article NPOV and accurate, well thought out and concieved. Misplaced Pages will be a better encyclopedia with this article in it. ] 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Undelete and Protect''' Article was improperly deleted, this time. AfD was closed less than 12 hours after it opened, and the article was speedily deleted for no apparent reason. The votes in the AfD contained both misleading information and outright lies. The administrator that deleted it, mentioned in IRC that he was biased against the group (the subject of the article), and this could have affected his better, NPOV judgement on the wikipedia article itself. It is claimed also that the article was deleted because it was "a giant flamewar", but no requests for page protection had been filed prior to this. The subject was notable, the article NPOV and accurate, well thought out and concieved. Misplaced Pages will be a better encyclopedia with this article in it. ] 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
** Also, I hope that the old copy was not lost - it represented a lot of work that a lot of contributors spent a lot of time doing. ] 05:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) ** Also, I hope that the old copy was not lost - it represented a lot of work that a lot of contributors spent a lot of time doing. ] 05:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:42, 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 overturn and relist. Kotepho 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted. 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)
  • Keep deleted. 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)
  • Strong Keep Deleted 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 speedy keep deleted or something? Nothing has changed since it was last deleted that would warrant recreation. ~MDD4696 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I recommend against that. 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 but I do see the point in this deletion review. If the last AfD was closed early, it's a little suspect considering the prior DRV result. Mangojuice 05:41, 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)
    I don't particularly like the closure of the DRV either, but is it really so much to ask that this get an AFD? It has been over a year since the last one. There is certainly a tiny bit of notability put forth, so I don't think it fits under A7 and since it was recreated after the DRV it does not fit G4. Someone said G1 on the AFD, but that is right out unless the article had been vandalized. Kotepho 05:36, 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? This should have never been allowed to happen. Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment This comment was removed due to a lack of understanding. Kotepho 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)*:Comment Are you that desperate
  • Undelete and Protect Article was improperly deleted, this time. AfD was closed less than 12 hours after it opened, and the article was speedily deleted for no apparent reason. The votes in the AfD contained both misleading information and outright lies. The administrator that deleted it, mentioned in IRC that he was biased against the group (the subject of the article), and this could have affected his better, NPOV judgement on the wikipedia article itself. It is claimed also that the article was deleted because it was "a giant flamewar", but no requests for page protection had been filed prior to this. The subject was notable, the article NPOV and accurate, well thought out and concieved. Misplaced Pages will be a better encyclopedia with this article in it. USER-cacophony 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)