Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 22:05, 25 October 2005 view sourceKmweber (talk \| contribs)6,865 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:03, 25 October 2005 view source Kmweber (talk \| contribs)6,865 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 125:		Line 125:
	*'''Undecided''' after looking at the "bried" afd, and readin the notes, i feel that this infromation does not deserve it's own article, but a part in the student administration page(as said in the afd)		*'''Undecided''' after looking at the "bried" afd, and readin the notes, i feel that this infromation does not deserve it's own article, but a part in the student administration page(as said in the afd)
	i do not beleive it was a page of vanity, but it does not merit it's own article. ] 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)		i do not beleive it was a page of vanity, but it does not merit it's own article. ] 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
			*'''Undelete''' as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. ] 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 23:03, 25 October 2005

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header 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.

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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal.

October 25

Misplaced Pages:Advogato

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato

This article was deleted on the assumption that it was an advertising page. In fact, it was intended as a community resource for the subset of wikipedians who have user accounts on advogato to recognise each other. I don't believe that there are any privacy implications of this (there may be with some classes of list of wikipedians), because all of the information was gathered from people who have freely owned up to their editing activity in their advogato diaries, and both classes of user identity may be pseudonymous. I think the article is an asset to a small class of WP editors and should be reinstated. --- Charles Stewart 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment The very good point you raise about cross-referencing utility was mentioned in the original debate by mendel (who made no vote.) Mendel's status here is interesting. If the vote is considered 3-1, I have more faith in it than if it be considered 3-1-1. I'm undecided. Xoloz 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete. I don't understand why this article was described as an advertising vehicle. It seems in its latest form to be a means for Advogato members to recognise one another, and track articles about prominent Advogato members (of whom I expect there are a few meriting articles). If its location should be a problem I suggest that it might be undeleted and userfied, perhaps to Charles Stewart's user-space. This is useful organizational information which Advogato members can use to coordinate their work on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all as this was not in the articel space, it should have gone to WP:MD rather than to AfD. However, this is a minor point. The AfD was in process, and of those actually expressing an opnion the count was #:1 for deletion, which is will withing the consensus zone. However, there seems to have been no response to comments that the articel was not advertising, which comments seem to have a basis in fact. Deletion debates should not simnply ignore plausible arguemtns, IMO. Disagree with the, sure. but fail to address them, no. So, Overturn the deletion and list on MD for further discussion, which should consider the arguments that this isn't advertising. DES 18:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I say there is no viable argument that the page was advertising, since deleting any suspected puffery would have left a useful page. Without a new objection to the page, a WP:MD listing would be a waste of time. --- Charles Stewart 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it isn't done now, it will be done by someone sometime. The forum cannot and will not "immunize" to future AfD. And, it's solid due process, which is almost always a great idea. Xoloz 19:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no suggestiuon of immunizing in my comment: I'm open to other objections to the list, and I anticipated one I am a bit worried about, namely that lists of editors can have malicious intent or unintended consequences. But relisting has to raise valid objections, not objections already shown to be unfounded. --- Charles Stewart 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete The above arguments have swayed me. No reason to avoid further discussion with minimal participation previously. Xoloz 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

DMRevolution

I wish to dispute my delete on the grounds that a) the assumptions made upon which the delete was decided were false, and b) I am and always was willing to make any changes suggested to me (but none were.) I've had customers as well as resellers for my company ask why it was deleted, and I have no straight answer for them. Forgive me if I am placing this in the wrong place to be considered--after reading the info given, I believe it is the correct place.

First, the reasons for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_24#DMRevolution

"advertisement" - I will acceded that my post was not NPOV. It was not 100% positive, and as such was not meant as an advertisement (or at least not a very good one), but it was an encyclopaedic article written by the corporation. If you will undelete it, I will go in, sweep out everything spammy, and henceforth not allow the corporation to moderate at all.
"not notable" - Our company is the default provider of video for eBay, with major partnerships also with Sanyo and many others. We are a multinational corporation with over 1,000 employees and resellers, and have been around for close to a decade. We have offices in Utah, Tokyo, the Bay Area (in Marin county!), and New York (on Fifth Avenue!). So we are not "not notable," you just weren't previously aware of us.
"verify that it's not a pyramid scheme" - I know there's a stereotype about any affiliate marketing program, but your preconceived notions are no reason to delete my article. We are 100% legal and unrelated to any type of "pyramid scheme." There are simply no definitions of "pyramid scheme" on the wikipedia, the SEC site, or the FTC site, which we fulfill. We have no required investment, no bonuses solely for signing people up, no inventory, no excited meetings at hotel convention centers, our products are not overpriced relative to the market (we sell them for the same amount in our sister companies). Plus, you have a great number of real pyramid schemes on your website (cf. Freeipods)
"unimpressive Alexa rank" - Each reseller operates as his own website, and thus the root rank is not accurate. We therefore operate under many domains, each with their own rank.
"Author claims to be a VP, but links to his personal page as a distributor" - I am actually the VP of DMRevolution, and of its parent company. The main page does not have the informational content that the distributor pages do, so I linked to a "corporation" distributor page. The videos on that page are demos at best. Pointing at a corporation page simply means if someone buys something off that page, the comission goes to the corporation, not any distributor. That's why it was aiming to AM0000005.aspx, not the root. The root page simply doesn't have a shopping cart. So you can call that a salespitch, but it's so passive that I don't see why one would.

Anyway, I will make any changes conditional to my site being undeleted. If you prefer, you can just take it off the "do not recreate" blacklist, and I will promise that no employee of the corporation will edit it. But right now, if someone googles our company, one of the things you see is a bunch of accusations on why we should be blacklisted, and that's just not appropriate, espeically when dealing with international clients.

Thank you for your consideration. Mrcolj 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Completely and utterly valid AfD (4-0), which is all this is about - this isn't to get a second bite of the cherry, so keep deleted. --Kiand 18:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Very sympathetic Oy vey, I'm sure the archive of the deletion debate isn't a great thing to have Google bring up. Something should done about that. Also, endorse recreation. Since this happened in May, you should be free to recreate a less commercial article. I don't see a need to overturn the VfD to do this, though. Xoloz 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

He can recreate it any time he wants, though its possible it'd be sent back to AfD, obviously. --Kiand 19:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a good idea to post public warning of possibly controversial recreation somewhere (lest it be speedied), so it's not like his nomination here was a bad idea. Xoloz 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

October 23

Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity

Challenge to Splash Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.

What he/she writes is:

“Please take the request to: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Misplaced Pages. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”

While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.

I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.

It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.

Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15 Sunday, October 23, 2005

I have moved this up here and formatted it correctly. I have also removed (yet another) copy-paste dump of the lengthy article. Admins can see it for themselves; if an editor thinks it essential in evaluating the AfD, it can be history-only undelete. -Splash 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The nominated article here has existed virtually identically at Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity (AfD), Castro-directed overt and covert operations (AfD), Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity, History of Cuban espionage, Cuba based espionage and destabilization operations and most, if not all, of their talk pages. I have been redeleting under CSD G4, obviously, per the 2 perfectly valid AfDs, which indicate some activity on the author's part. This feels not a little bit like POV pushing to me. My offer to block issues from Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity in particular, and came after three recreations in the article and one in the talk page as well as realising how many other locations this was being tried at (it also followed a much nicer message pointing the editor here). No reason given for undeletion, save a family history, nor any suggestion that the AfD was interpreted wrongly, so keep it(them) deleted. I'm glad I'm still young, however. -Splash 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The author has since pasted the article into the IP's talk page and Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators (yes, verbatim, with a copy of the above complaint). I said I'd block him if he recreated the article again anywhere, so he's taking 24 hours off. -Splash 22:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid deletion, and any negative discussion about any other Wikipedian's age is inappropriate. User:Zoe| 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted per Splash's discussion above. Rossami (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, as the main objection in the AFD hasn't been solved: it does not have references. While the content of the article might be true or not, without outside sources it becomes a candidate for deletion under the No Original Research policy. Might reconsider if that is addressed and the attacks on Splash cease. Titoxd 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't much mind the snide comment: I think it's just classic Professor-v-PhDstudent animus. But saying that I'm from Bath...well...And more seriously I would reconsider my keep-deleted, too, if proper referencing were provided (it has none at all, by the way, but offers two texts as introductory reading). It occurs to me that a prof such as the nominator says he is probably can provide references from peer-reviewed texts that would be a significant help. They might, however, belong better in other articles, as suggested in the first of the AfDs I listed. The article also needs some heavy language-cleaning and a little de-POVvery but those alone wouldn't delete it. -Splash 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted per Splash, Titoxd. Dottore So 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will try again with a complete set of citations to published text; books are not commonly peer reviewed, but rather sent out to "readers" for evaluation. Keep in mind if you read present references inserted the text to web sites and books (e.g. The Voyage of the Damned, which is an exhaustively researched book) you will find them citing both Cuban government sources, and authors both Castro friendly and Cuban-exiles. However, I will rewrite and add more detail and exhaustive citation list. Did you every hear of Jose Eligio de la Fuente who spied for George Washington, and Juan Mirelles who met with Patrick Henry. Spies by nature are most commonly discrete, and their actions by definition vague and shadowy...Graham Greene for instance was once a real spy, and really did work under the direction of Kim Philby. Hemingway, for a time during WWII had his own spy apparatus, manned by Spanish Republicans living in Havana. When my book comes out you can, if you wish, read of the real spy I was ordered to bury as punishment because I had refused to execute him (El Jigüe, 10/24/2005).

I am now inserting a drastically revised version, please read it first before you decide to delete it or not (El Jigüe, 10/25/2005)

October 22

October 21

Arts and Science Students' Union

I request that the Arts and Science Students' Union article be undeleted. The Arts And Science Students union has over 20,000 members and although it is a group under the Students Administrative Council, it is in very few ways actually connected with the organization and deserves to be undeleted and stand on its own. Students (that i know) are also activly in the process of updating and maintaining the stub into a full article.

Keep Deleted Valid VfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arts and Science Students' Union Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Valid AfD. Requestor has provided no inforation that was not available during the AfD discussion. --Allen3 11:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted as per reason mentioned above. *drew 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted; organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university don't belong on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Misplaced Pages policy already explicitly spells this out. Bearcat 18:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, they do. Policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted but mention both organizations under University of Toronto and straighten out there. Septentrionalis 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment; This article was recomended for deletion under the context of it being a vainity page. However, it in no way falls under the description of a vanity page. Because of this I want to request that it be undeleted, or that someone please help me understand why wikipedia does not allow organizations that have associations with other organizations to have independent articles. Jason Schwartz
- There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article. A topic that's only relevant to students at one particular university isn't notable enough, because nobody who isn't a student at that university has any need to know anything about it. You can add something to University of Toronto (or, more appropriately, to Students' Administrative Council), but it doesn't deserve its own separate article because it just isn't notable enough. Bearcat 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted as said above, it does not merit it's own article but deserves a place under the university of toronto. Maby a little bit or stub explaining the student unions at the university of toronto? -Chickendude 04:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Physics and Astronomy Students' Union

I request that the Physics and Astronomy Students' Union article be undeleted. The person who nominated it for speedy deletion misunderstood the scope of the organization and as thus assumed that it would be indefferent to delete. However, as an organization with ties to many physics and astonomy related associations and a strong reputation amoung University of Toronto students, I feel that it is a unique body and is deserving of it's own article. PASU currently has over 2000 members and thousands of Alumni and the article will be added onto in the near future.

Keep Deleted Valid VfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Physics and Astronomy Students' Union Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Valid AfD. Requestor has provided no inforation that was not available during the AfD discussion. --Allen3 11:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Valid AfD. *drew 11:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted; organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university don't belong on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Misplaced Pages policy already explicitly spells this out. Bearcat 18:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment; This article was recomended for deletion under the context of it being a vainity page. However, it in no way falls under the description of a vanity page. Because of this I want to request that it be undeleted, or that someone please help me understand why wikipedia does not allow organizations that have associations with other organizations to have independent articles. Jason Schwartz
- There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article. A topic that's only relevant to students at one particular university isn't notable enough, because nobody who isn't a student at that university has any need to know anything about it. You can add something to University of Toronto (or, more appropriately, to Students' Administrative Council), but it doesn't deserve its own separate article because it just isn't notable enough. Bearcat 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Undecided after looking at the "bried" afd, and readin the notes, i feel that this infromation does not deserve it's own article, but a part in the student administration page(as said in the afd)

i do not beleive it was a page of vanity, but it does not merit it's own article. Chickendude 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexercise

I request that

Sexercise: Erotic combination of dance and exercise derived from exotic dance with stylized, controlled, soft, curvy, and flowy movements.

be undeleted and should be added as a dance category. The special moves are new and with an added S to exercise it symbolizes the shape of a woman that uses the exotic dance movement for exercise. This was added to Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy by User:Ledalim. I moved it here, and guessed at the article title. -Splash 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The material is still in the article (which is a bit of a mess, imo). So there's nothing for us to undelete, and nothing that even needs reverting so far as I can tell. -Splash 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence that this article was ever deleted. As Splash says, there's nothing to undelete. However, we should probably warn the contributors to the page that this appears to be an unsourced neologism and that unless the article is quickly cleaned up, it may be nominated for regular deletion. Rossami (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
To be complete, looking at user's talk page and edits, he could also have meant Sexercise: Erotic combination of dance and exercise derived from exotic dance with stylized, controlled, soft, curvy, and flowy movements., what's in a name? This page was indeed deleted Garion1000 18:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, you know I thought I had seen the article before. That is presumably what he wants undeleted. It was, however, a copyright violation and pure+simple advertising, and has alraedy been addded to the far less ridiculously titled article I guessed at here, so can stay deleted on any or all of those grounds. Copyvio status probably means it should be excised from Sexercise, too. -Splash 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the long-name version deleted as an unresolved copyvio. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  - and for being the stupidest name for an article ever. -R. fiend 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    - What about sexorcism? Marskell 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

October 20

Gaytarded

I was the original nominator for this page to be deleted. Unfortunately, it was deleted out-of-process, and I feel it should be relisted for deletion. User:Linuxbeak deleted the article while it had been listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gaytarded for less than six hours, and has not responded to a request on his talk page to relist the article. Could the article be recreated and relisted on VfD, so it can be deleted in accordance with policy? -- Creidieki 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You want to do more work to achieve the same result that's already been achieved? Why? Friday (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted due to WP not being a beaurocracy. There's nothing wrong with closing a VfD early if a clear consensus is already established. It happens all the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It should have been speedy deleted anyway, judging from the title. Exploding Boy 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It was also an attack page disgused as a dicdef. Excerpt: "Gaytarded was originaly meant to insult Australians, specificly Aiden Yuma." Whoever that is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - valid speedy - Tεx τ urε 20:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, undeleting an attack page isn't a good thing, IMO. Titoxd 20:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Among the reasons this is valid: several established users called for a speedy with little opposition, allowing the admin to do so at his decretion, by ample precedent. Xoloz 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. One good-faith vote for keep, and another explicit contestation that this was a speedy delete. Not sure what CSD would apply. The only problem with this article is that it's a dicdef/neologism, or so it appears from the nomination page; give it 5 days and it might improve. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. The problem with this article is that it's an attack page. Defining a derogatory neologism and then applying it to someone in specific is actually a pretty common occurrence, and they are usually – and rightfully – speedied. android79 21:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment The article wasn't primarily an attack page. It contained several paragraphs of notes on usage, definition, and etymology. It did contain one personal attack near the end of the article, but I don't believe that was the primary content of the page. I don't see any other valid criteria for speedy deletion; the page seems to be merely a nonnotable dictdef with no cited references and questionably true information.

It may not have been the primary content, but IMO it was the primary intent. Setting up an elaborate definition with all the dressings of an encyclopedia article, and then saying, "By the way, a prime example of X is So-and-so Jones." is subtle vandalism. All of the contributions to both incarnations of the article are from the same IP and use the same name for the example usage, further indicating that this is just someone having a bit of fun with a friend or poking fun at someone they don't like. android79 22:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Pat Robertson. Actually Keep deleted. Very valid speedy. "A combination of 'Gay' and 'Retarded' Invented by James Liechnitz" that's nonsense/attack/vanity. No one "invents" words like this, these portmanteaus arise naturally. "Dickwad", "Shitass", "Fuckling", "Pissshitter" etc. aren't invented by any one person who can then write about themself as the inventor of it in an encyclopedia. No one in their right mind would vote to keep this article. -R. fiend 21:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. This might be elaborate, but it's basically an attack page and the sooner we remove those from the face of the Wiki the better. Oh, and no, the Wiki would not be a better place with the article restored. We are not a dictionary, despite the misunderstanding of one editor in the debate, and we are not Urban Dictionary either. -Splash 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. If eight votes for deletion and one keep isn't a rough consensus for deletion, I can't imagine what a rough consensus would look like. The chances that the next few days would have seen, say, fifteen more keep votes and no delete votes is not worth fussing about. Nor do I see any special circumstances (e.g. topic areas where there is a well-known cadre of supporters who have not been given a chance to weigh in) that would suggest putting it back on AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Based on the edit history, I concur with the assessment that this was an attack page, not a good-faith attempt at an unbiased article. Even if you removed all the attack content, this would still be a mere dicdef. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Coining a neologism to masquerade ones uncivility does not invalidate the CSD rule for attack pages. jni 10:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid Afd. *drew 11:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fusionart design studio UK

This was speedy deleted, and does not seem to fit any speedy category. It seems to have been an advertisemetn, but it is at least possible that an NPOV article on the subject could be created out of it. It should have been taken to AfD, and should be after undeltion. DES 16:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. This "article" was pure spam, which is a form of vandalism. --FOo 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Spam on Misplaced Pages, as far as vandalism is concerned, is defined as "adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion." While I agree with the sense, it's a bit of a stretch to describe this clearly good-faith article, which was patiently maintained and modestly expanded over a period of six months, as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the Misplaced Pages (which is our thumbnail definition of vandalism). This was a good call, but not a valid deletion under the letter or spirit of the "pure vandalism" CSD. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- In case it's puzzling anyone about why we're disagreeing about something we basically agree is crap and shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules and my arguments about this particular example (one of hundreds I could cite) in which, I argue, a RC patroller makes a good call with no applicable referent in the WP:CSD. --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Ads aren't vandalism (no malicious intent, ads are often placed by newbies who don't know what is appropriate on Misplaced Pages, and some ads have been expanded into useful articles about their companies) but this ad isn't going anywhere. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - User test - same range of IPs was making the edits and for the fourth and final edit blanked the article. - Tεxτurε 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- No. The first three were BT and the last (the blanking) was NTL. Two completely different companies. If this had been a user test, it would have been a pretty longlasting one. The article was created in April, and edit again in June and September. Good call by jni, but not a user test. It was an ad, not a speedy candidate according to the CSDs. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - You have it backwards. The blanking edit was by 81.105.148.148. The two before it were by 81.*.*.*. There was one back in April by a different user. - Tεx τ urε 20:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Check again. I'm doing whois right now. The IP 81.105.148.148 (blanking) is coming up as NTL (AS5089), the other three are all BT (AS2856). --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - One ISP is in London and the other is just outside London. This is the same user. (If you're interested I connect to about four ISPs and have access to two more. I normally only use two for Misplaced Pages. You'll likely find the providers for my IP ranges with about the same distance as those in this case.) - Tεx τ urε 21:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Both BT and NTL are major nationwide ISPs; presumably you're referring to the fact that BT has its national HQ in London and NTL has its national HQ in Winchester. While there is nothing to rule out the possibility that the original author did the blanking, there is no reason to suppose that he did. You cannot say "this is the same user," though you may speculate that it may be the same user. Moreover the longevity of the article makes speculation about it being a test article somewhat moot. --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. No more than spam. Angela . 19:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, as Fubar and Angela have pointed out, it's just plain spam. Titoxd 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted the horribly promotional language, totalling 18 words is just a platform for the link. It's probably a copyvio, too, but I'm not going to give it the energy of checking. -Splash 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I originally speedied this because I misread the edit history and thought this was a user test where the anonymous editor implicitly expressed his desire for this to be deleted by blanking the page. It is an existing practise by many admins to extend CSD rule G7 to all unreasonably odd, vague, or confused requests for deletion (like blanking a page just created) and A3 to all short articles they deem are just platforms for placing external links for purposes of self-promotion or spamming to Misplaced Pages and I believe it is more important to follow the unwritten consensus than bother with rules-lawyering. However, I agree with Tony Sidaway's comment above; I don't think this could be classified as pure vandalism; I see no traces of malicious intention by the anon who created this. (On the other hand, Tony's sentence ...this clearly good-faith article, which was patiently maintained and modestly expanded over a period of six months made me laugh out loud! I hope that spam crap like this could be deleted soon after creation, not patiently nurtured!) BTW, has anyone checked the second contribution by this same anon author, Boxclever Films, for notability? Doesn't seem very well known company to me. jni 10:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad I made you laugh! When I say "good faith..patiently maintained and modestly expanded" I mean just that: I don't mean to imply that it's at all encyclopedic, but I'm extending a presumption of good faith--I believe an eminently justifiable one--to the author. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Seems like a spam to me. *drew 11:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborian language

I was informed that this article existed as "Zlatiborian speech" before I made it, and that it was deleted. I was also said to propose it for undeletion before making it. Now my "Zlatiborian language" article is deleted, and I'm asking for undeleting it.--SellackAlex 14:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The AfD of Zlatiborian speech was used as rationale for deleting Zlatiborian language, even though the latter is much longer than the former. Normally I'd say we should undelete based on that, but the AfD makes note of the fact that this concept is thought to be a hoax. Is this a valid language? android79 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes. This was speedied on the grounds that it was a hoax, and had been so determined by the prtevious deletion discussion. Can anyone provide citations showing that it is not a hoax? If so, it should be undeleted IMO. Otherwise, it is not verifiable, and shouldn't be included in wikipedia anyway. DES 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Original deletion was based on a set of interrelated discussions (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborians, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborian speech, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborian literature, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Institute for the Zlatiborian language and literature, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborian) that asserted the articles were all part of a single hoax. Keep deleted unless reliable sources are provided to verify the basic claims that such a language exists. --Allen3 15:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, A(well, V)fD avalanche seemed to be done correctly, and verifiability remains wanting. Possible hoax but absolutely unverified. Lord Bob 15:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Sources required for recreation. --Michael Snow 16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. There's still no evidence this wasn't a hoax. I agree with Michael that sources must be given before this is undeleted. Angela . 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Looks like a hoax. According to this Meta talk page, a request for a Zlatiborian WP was deleted by User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић, who says it was "a joke". Said user is a Serbian and Croatian speaker, plus he's actually from Zlatibor, so he should know. Also, no mention of Zlatiborian on any Googleable websites besides WP and mirrors. Smells strongly of hoax. Really, really good sources should be supplied before undeletion is considered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. AfD decisively and validy removed the lot of them, and it's entirely reasonable to extend the debates to apply here in the absence of any significant new information such as, e.g. verifiability. -Splash 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Seymour-James

Dear All, I believe this collecttion of press releases is news worthy. Seymour-James is a bonafide business which markets property in South West France. People search for rpoerty can find the business listed here. We have interesting articles being published all the time. for example, a property from the Knights Templar has just come onto the market and I have published a press release about it which has been accepted by several news agencies. I intend to add it to the list of Seymour-James press releases which is listed with wikinews. I therefore humbly request a bit of patience and that this page be allowed to remain - please vote accordingly.

David Seymour

Comment Mr. Seymour you should reference why you feel the vote to delete the page was flawed. Also, please check: WP:CORP; if you feel the company meets one of these criteria that wasn't mentioned in the vote, this would provide a basis. As a non-admin I can't actually view this. Marskell 13:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No such article was ever deleted, or created, for that matter. Perhaps you have the title wrong? android79 14:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Narcisse-Fortunat Belleau

Page history claims to have been deleted for copyvio, while im not sure what exactly was copyvioed I know some work has gone into this page from a number of people since January 2005. Can we please undelete this and fix what was supposedly wrong? There was no discussion on this anywhere about this before the page was turfed. --Cloveious 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted Blantent copyvio. There is a very small section that wasn't a copy vio, but I doubt it's worth keeping. Splash - this was yours :). Ryan Norton 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The entire article is a blatant copyvio in every revision from a non-commercial only source , including the first two introductory sentences which just skip a couple of words from the source. There was a succession box at the bottom, but that's beside the point since it's no good without at least a stub to go with it. Copyvios do not often require much judgement, and this one was a straightforward copy-paste in every revision, so none of them should be restored. It was listed, I presume, on 25th Sept's copyvio list, but there is usually little to no discussion and none was necessary in this case. It doens't appear to have been tagged, but we shouldn't knowingly restore copyvio content anyway, there's no excuse. Note to the nominator: any article you write on this that is not a copyvio is explicitly not a speedy. -Splash 12:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The way to "fix" copyright infringement is to write a new article, using your own words and not somebody else's. --Michael Snow 16:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. You can use outside sources, not outside text. No prejudice against a new article, given it isn't a copyvio. Titoxd 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

October 18

Woodroffe Avenue

After the 5-day lag, I count 19kd-18u, but this includes DES as a kd, which he may well not be. Since that would leave it tied, and other editors appear to be treating this as a re-run of the AfD, I'm going to follow Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy and allow this to run an additional 5 days. -Splash 18:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This article was deleted according to a 17 (d) to 8 (k) to 1 (merge) VfD count with the strongest keep arguments being it is "extremely important Ottawa road" and it is "perfectly verifiable". It was deleted, re-recreated, speedy deleted (G4: Re-creation of deleted material) and finally re-created again. The re-creator argues that the article has been "signifigantly upgraded". While this is true he also re-created the deleted material. So I bring it here: is this a legitamite, properly-written article or an over-riding of a VfD outcome? --maclean25 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Edit Summary

Delete until proper sources (Ministry of Transportation?) can be used to integrate relevant information. This is a notoriously difficult subject to write about. Because this road is not significant (historically, culturally, etc.) it must default to a description of the road (origin, history, uses, characteristics, etc). "Sights on Woodroffe" describes a commuter's experience while traveling along the road (ie. details of someone's commute to work). While the "Features" section more clearly grasps the concept of a road as a piece of an infrastructure system, it is just cruft. But the map and image really help the understading of the article. Finally, let me say this: a road is not a place; it is a line on a map, a strip of asphalt on the ground, a piece of the transportation network, and a piece of city infrastructure. It is the means to achieve an end, but not an end itself. --maclean25 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. 9 to 17 isn't even the standard 2/3rds level needed to deleted a page. Moreover I greatly expanded it during the debate, bringing it from this to its present state. - SimonP 13:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted 17-to-8 (or 9 if you count "merge" as meaning "keep") isn't the world's most overwhelming consensus, but it's well within acceptable limits for a closer to make a judgement call. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted valid afd. It was close but that's a judgement call of the closer. I feel sorry for Simon though, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Its an interesting debate though with the spinboy crew (including earl et al.) actually voting to keep it - most likely because they are from around that area themselves. Its literally just the school debates - people want to keep what's familiar to them, and it can be difficult for them to tell whether it is really encyclopedic or not. However, from the high turnout (and 17 delete opinions) it seems the community seems to think its not worth keeping - whether that's because they've become jaded with all the roadcruft, because they don't know much about that particular road, or just don't know anything about roads in general is not for us to question. I wish people in these debates would try to communicate those kind of things better then worthless opinions like "Keep roadcruft" or "Delete nn road" Ryan Norton 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted and Delete, valid AfD. --fvw * 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strictly speaking this doesn't belong on VfU. This content isn't deleted, and as I understand the history (correct me if I am wrong) It wasn't undeleted, it was re-created, speedied as a recreation, and has now been recreated again with the claim that it has been expanded enough that the prior deletion decision dosn't apply, plus a secondary claim that that decision was incorrect anyway. Have I got the siutuatioon correct? Now if an article is recreated in a form different enough that CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content) does not apply, there is normally no reason for VfU to be involved -- anyone can always renominate for AfD. But if it is speedy deleted under G4 and that is contested, VfU could be involved. I will take this as a sort of advance request to void a G4 Speedy. I just compared the current version with the version that existed during the VfD debate. They seem pretty close to word-for-word identical, except that a single short paragrpah has been added to the end of the current version, as have three refernces. I think that makes this "substantially similar" to the deleted version, adn makes a G4 speedy plausible. However, G4 only applies to "validly deleted" content. If we were to overturn the VfD result, it would not apply. The numbers are marginal for a consensus to delete, but the argumets of thoe favoring delete seem rather stronger to me than those favoring keep. I think this is within the zone of closer judgement, although just barely. Thus I think the deletion was valid. Therefore I reccomend that the current article be re-speedied under G4. Now if the editors of this article stil want such an article to exist, i would advise that they rewrite it so that 1) it truly is not even clse to 'substantially similar" to the deleted version, and 2) that they at least try to address the arguments made in the deletion debate in the new version. An articel recreated in that way will not be subject to G4, and could only be delted after a new AfD debate, in which those favoring it could make all the points they can find. if the previous issues are addressed, it might well not be deleted in a new afd debate. So re-delete under G4. DES 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have now tagged this for speedy delete under G4. That will not void this discussion, it can continue as a true undeltion debate. DES 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Re-delete and keep deleted afterwards, valid AFD. I agree with Ryan that closer admins might sometimes be annoyed at votes that do not give any opinion at all. No prejudice against a different new version, though. Titoxd 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The only criteria under which a city street should ever have its own Misplaced Pages article are:

the road is famous enough, for whatever reason, that a person who's never been to the city in their lives and has never seen a map of the city in their lives can still be reasonably expected to have heard of it,
the road is so intimately connected to a major historical event that even if the road itself isn't famous, it's necessary as part of the event's full historical context.

Woodroffe does not meet either criterion. Just because an article is prettied up with a photo and a map doesn't make it a valid article; it still has to meet one of those criteria. I've lived in Ottawa, for gawd's sake, and I still just don't see why I should consider how many lanes Woodroffe has or its weird intersection with Carling to be information that belongs in an encyclopedia. I'm a mapgeek, for God's sake, and I still don't see why 99.99 per cent of local city streets should have articles. And I'm not Ottawa-bashing -- there are plenty of Ottawa streets I'd vote to keep under the criteria I listed; Woodroffe just isn't one of them. Delete unless somebody can actually come up with a far more convincing argument in favour of city streets than "anything that exists deserves an article". Bearcat 18:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. mikka (t) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Woodroffe_Avenue. Additionally, in my interpretation the original AfD was 15d and 7k, giving 68 percent for deletion, which I do not feel is enough consensus for deletion. However, I have re-deleted the article and protected the page, pending the outcome of this VfU. Ëvilphoenix 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- If the standard is 2/3, 68 per cent meets that. Bearcat 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. While hardly a strong consensus, anything at 66% or over is IMO within the zone of judgement of the closer. Particualrly with fairly high participation, IMO, the required percentage can decrease to a degree (at 4D/2K I am rather less comfortable than at 20D/10K). And the quality of the arguments made can be taken into account, AfD is supposed to be a debate as well as a pure vote, isn't it? You might not close as a delete at 68%, but I don't think that is enough to over-ride a good-faith closing by another admin. DES 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Gamaliel 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This article generated quite a bit of participation, which is good. It also appears to have generated a lot of discussion, which is also good. But when I closed this AFD it seemed to me that most of the arguing done on the keep side was overwhelmingly represented by Earl Andrew. Some others weighed in also, but a primary driver of much of the discussion on the keep side was coming from him (and Spinboy to a lesser extent). Less so, I felt, with folks who voted delete -- while Bearcat engaged Earl Andrew a fair bit toward the end, in general, a larger variety of those who voted to delete engaged in the threaded discussion. Therefore, I did not feel that those who voted to keep had a strong enough position to ignore a well-turned-out vote that met the 2/3rds threshold for rough consensus. · Katefan0 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted; there was no irregularity about the original deletion, as 17 d to 8 k is a legitimate (better than 2/3rds) delete closure, and should have been left to the closing admins discretion.--Scimitar 19:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Looking at the latest version I see that it's a much-enhanced article. Keeping this deleted goes against the spirit of allowing new articles to be created in place of deleted ones. At the very least put the current version back on AfD and see how it fares. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. I'll have to take on faith the assertion of the creator (and the acceptance of the nominator) that the article was signficantly expanded, and thus not a valid speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment "Much enhanced" compared to which version? The version of "08:34, 24 September 2005" (which is 5 days prior to the AfD close, and 2 days before the last AfD comment) is practically word for word identical with the most current version available, except for the addition of one short (2-3 sentance) paragrpah at the very end, plus three cited references. I have done a detailed comparison of these two versions. Why should something that went through a perfectly valid AfD which got well above average participation and a reasonable (if not huge) consensus to delete be relisted? If it is, why shouldn't every AfD Debate with 68% to delete and under 25 voters be relisted automatically? DES 20:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Your analysis doesn't really address the problem; okay, not much was added, but I could add a few words to an article and change it from a speedy delete to a clear keep. Did the new information address the primary problem of non-notability? I don't know. The nominator acknowledges that the article was "significantly upgraded." It sounds like it should go through AFD again. Also, I endorse Encephalon's comments below. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I, the nominator, agreed with the "significantly upgraded" comment because of an inclusion of a map (well, figure representing the road and its cross-streets). This one simple figure summarized most of the info trying to be explained in text. My deletionist attitude towards road articles stems from that feature. Roads are best explained/described on maps. Unless a historical/social commentary can be made, they make for terrible for prose. --maclean25 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comments. First, an appeal to editors who happen to have a few extra buttons: please do not undelete, redelete, unilaterally open closed AFDs and re-edit them, and wheel war. This is unhelpful. Use the standard processes of wikipedia to conduct your business. The buttons are provided to you to protect the encyclopedia from vandals and to execute the consensus of the community, with their permission. Nothing else, please. Second, I do not understand the original AFD close. It was 17D 8K 1M. This means the % support for D is 17/26 which is <67%. If you have limits like two-thirds or four-fifths of opinions, they only make sense if you stick to them. If you think that there is a good reason to WP:IAR, you need to explain clearly why you're doing so, and what other policy or reason you're invoking that you feel is important enough for you to perform the action. I hope all editors who close boderline AFDs especially will consider saying a few words about their decision (see some of Splash's closes for example). However, Katefan (who, I must say, rocks unbelievably :)) provides an explanation here: one voter on the keep side was especially vociferous in making his points. I can see how this can be somewhat significant; however, I cannot see that this is a reason to discount any other keep vote, and as nothing suggests that that was done, I do not understand the close. It is well to remember that in close decisions it is especially important to be very clear and careful. I have no problem at all with close decisions—but their bases must be solid. Thirdly, with respect to the recreation, it attempts to address the most important weakness of the original. It is referenced to three documents, which apparently provide a basis for verifiability; as they are all offline I cannot verify this for myself for now, but it is not unreasonable to expect that the stated documents provide some verification of the claims. The way the article is written strongly suggests some unencyclopedic writing ± original research, but these can probably be rectified via simple editing. Whether the article needs to demonstrate a greater claim than verifiability is a decision for the community to make via AFD. Here, the most important issue is that G4 does not apply: a recreation that addresses an important article-policy weakness in the original is not substantially identical to the original. We need to be extremely careful with applying G4, because intemperate application of that (very important) rule is anti-wiki and can unfairly stop genuine improvements from being judged or accepted by the community. Undelete. encephalon 20:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, because apart from three bullet points or so, and two sentences the article is verbatim to that deleted. These minor changes were made to a restored article, not a rewritten one. -Splash 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I belive part of the reason the afd fell towards 'delete' was because the 'delete' side presented more and more solid arguments. That is, it just wasn't number of votes. --maclean25 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Sure, that might be so. But what I'm saying is that in such cases these things should be spelled out a little clearly—most especially here, because the delete decision was reached with a less than two thirds delete consensus (based on the raw vote). If a closer finds reasons to delete/keep particularly compelling, we should be told what they were and why. I've said before that admin decisions should not consist of simply totting up raw votes, but ought to consider the strength of the comments and arguments. Where this results in a deviation from rough consensus, an explanation is always in order. Splash: you may be right. I'm judging this based on memory of the recreation and history, prior to the page protect, and IIRC there were two new paras and 3 government reports for sources. Now, if one reason an article was judged inappropriate was that it did not satisfy WP:V, an action taken to mend that is significant. It's important to remember that post-(valid)AFD, the only way to introduce material on the subject to WP is to address the concerns of the AFD in a rewrite; I'm hesistant to use G4 where a clear attempt has been made and the article improved for it. On the other hand, a major rephrasing of an article that nevertheless didn't do a shred to address the articlespace policies that the original violated will not impress me. enceph alon 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The closure was entirely within admin discretion, we all know that, and no-one appears to be attempting to challenge the point. To the G4 point, the only two relevant revisions are those prior to the first deletion and, effectively, the last one before the latest addition of the speedy tag. The others are by definition identical since they were mindlessly restored rather than rewritten. I count a few references and a couple of sentences difference and otherwise identicality verbatim. All the deletions were valid, and there are no grounds for undeletion, save whimsy, perhaps. -Splash 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll challenge that point. 66% is generally considered the minimum needed to delete a page, this article did not have this. Remember that merge is explicitly a form of keep vote, as noted on Guide_to_deletion. - SimonP 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Even if you reduce it to counting alone, it is still within discretion as much as not deleting until you get to some arbitrarily high percentage. The discretion thing cuts both ways. -Splash 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't feel the argument behind the merge vote was terribly strong and as such I didn't count it toward either extreme. The editor didn't speak to the merits or demerits of this article itself, rather his comments were about wanting to create an article within which to merge different sorts of roads. · Katefan0 22:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete per Tony Sidaway. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, this falls well within limits of admin discretion. Besides, the information in this article is far more easily represented as a map, and we all know that Misplaced Pages can contain pictures of maps. Let's add such a map to Nepean, Ottawa, and redirecting this article there. R adiant _>|< 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. My findings substantially match Splash's, et al. The expanded version was visible during the original discussion period. The changes were not sufficient to cause the "deletes" to change their minds. While this was a close call, it was within acceptable bounds of admin discretion. Please remember that we are not voting and that closers are not only allowed but required to use the discussion comments to guide and weight their decision.
I'll add that had I been the one to close this discussion I would likely have discounted one of the "keep" votes as a bad-faith edit by a suspected troll. Katefan0 appears to have used reasonable discretion in making this call.
However, the debate could have been closed more clearly. I know that it can be very time-consuming but if Katefan0 had explained his/her reasoning in detail, we might have avoided this dispute. As a lesson for the future, closers should always take the time to show their work, especially on a close call. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
undelete' this please simonpc did a lot of work to make this article better so we should keep it Yuckfoo 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid AfD with the decision within traditional norms for admin discretion. --Allen3 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Locally important and verifiable is sufficient. — File:Ontario trillium sig.png mendel ☎ 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete per Christopher Parnham, and go ahead and relist on AfD. I am unable to view deleted articles, but I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on the part of those who claim to have expanded this. Un focused 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, subject of article was verifiable and after discounting the usual "nn, d." votes the AfD comes out as a no consensus keep. I believe Tony Sidaway and others when they say that the article improved significantly. Alphax 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Valid AFD --JAranda | watz sup 03:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid AfD, with more than enough discussion and votes to make it so. And based on the AfD discussion, I can't imagine what "vast improvements" could possibly have been made to a new version of the article that would have been overlooked in the original AfD: no one came up with any argument stronger than "it's a busy street in a certain neighborhood in Ottawa", so what magical bit transformed Woodroffe Avenue 2.0 into a suddenly worthy addition? --Calton | Talk 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and relist. The AFD was about a shorter article, while this one was significantly expanded. Expanding something even when keeping part of the previously deleted material is perfectly valid. Just relist it on AFD, but you can't keep this deleted based on a outdated AFD. - Mgm| 11:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete. With the wafer thin numerical consensus to delete and the improvement of the article after many of the delete votes (recall that voters rarely come back to change their vote) it seems highly appropriate here to act on the safe side and restore the article. Often it is true that an afd is "valid" but nevertheless short of ideal. Seems to be the case here. (Note I have undeleted one revision - visible only from the history tab - to allow non-admins to see what the fuss is about). Pcb21| Pete 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and relist The AfD was valid, but the parties most concerned both agree that the new content is significantly improved, so no speedy is called for. In a pinch, give the article a second chance. Xoloz 18:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you weren't fooled by the peacock terms used in the nomination. --maclean25 (at work)
Keep Deleted Initial discussion was very thorough and the consensus to delete was sufficiently strong. Dottore So 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete due to lack of consensus and being an arterial road. --SPUI (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete because it does no harm. The deletion was done in process, as far as we have one. The article is accurate and of good quality. The road is notable enought to have some tens of thousands of google hits (the top one being to the AfD - lets change that!), and there is no armay of road-crufters waiting to use the undeletion as an excuse to load millions of roads onto the 'pedia. Rich Farmbrough 00:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Like this, maybe?: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject California County Routes --Calton | Talk 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete --Cloveious 05:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete and expand. Was deleted without consensus. Was improved during the interim. Passes the Bajoran wormhole test. Pedant 20:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Does this mean the road is fictional? :) --Gmaxwell 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted It appears clear that VFD did was it was supposted to do. The article fails to establish notability. ... I wish we had a wikitriviabook project to act as an outlet for every little fact that people want to document. --Gmaxwell 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. With less than a two thirds majority for deletion, some sort of explanation as to why this was closed as a "delete" rather than a "no consensus" would have been in order. Such closes are sometimes in order, but the closer should in such situations explain why they are doing so. Without that, I think it best that we have a second debate over this. Also, after reviewing the article, this road appears to be one of the main arteries of the city. I have also seen that the article was expanded during the course of the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: it had exactly a 2/3 vote for deletion, not less than 2/3. Bearcat 07:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Nope. Sjakkalle is correct. 17/26 =~ 65.38% < 2/3. This was less than 2/3, fwiw. Xoloz 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Wait, when did Misplaced Pages become a democracy? Why does 2/3 majority matter? "The discussion iteself is more important than the statistics." Please read the arguments for and against as you are counting votes. --maclean25 19:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete as per Sjakkalle. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Question: where can I read the "signifigantly upgraded" version of the page? -- Corvus 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The upgrade edit has been deleted but this here is the article in question. --maclean25 00:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Huh?! Is viewing diffs on deleted articles a new feature? -Splash 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  - And for clarity's sake, the diff is from during the AfD debate, rather than the difference between the originally deleted and latterly speedied article. -Splash 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Pilatus 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted, valid AfD closure. User:Zoe| 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete (and, of course) relist. I won't take the time to disentangle the all the minutiae of process. What I'm seeing is that a) the vote was close; b) Katefan0's closure looks valid to me; c) nevertheless, User:SimonP's changes look nontrivial; d) not being a road expert I don't know how to judge accuracy or how to verify the content, but the result has the look and feel of a pretty good article. I tend to like high-quality articles on practically any subject. Usually when I check statements that "the article was vastly improved during the closing minutes of AfD" I do not find myself in agreement, but in this case I do. The image and diagram add quite a lot. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. While the revised article is larger, it is still nothing more than an attempt to describe a map in prose. This is a fundamentally flawed concept, no one is going to find a location or get directions by reading something like this. If you want a map, you can get detailed real-time info from Google maps. -- Corvus 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid AfD; and it's just another road. -R. fiend 03:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. (I had added my vote several days ago, but it seems to have disappeared into a void.) There were plenty of opinions expressed in the original AfD, so I'll try to summarize.
- Reasons to delete:
  - road is not notable
  - article is unencyclopedic
  - road lacks historical and cultural significance
  - this is simply a roadmap in prose; a map serves the purpose much more efficiently
  - the information would better belong in an Infrastructure of Ottawa article
  - having a high volume of traffic with respect to roads in the surrounding community is not sufficient to warrant an article
  - there is nothing that is unique to this road that would merit an article
- Reasons to keep:
  - road is verifiable
  - road is a major street in Ottawa, with high traffic volume
  - road is Nepean's Main Street (this is disputed though, as it refers only to traffic, not economy or culture)
- I think the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments to keep. (If I've missed anything, please add it.) Hence, I don't think the article should be restored. Mindmatrix 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  - - If the information belongs in an Infrastructure of Ottawa article, then it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. "Items that should be merged" is not a valid reason to delete in the first place. Un focused 14:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Clarification Splash commented above that he wasn't sure that I was truly of the view that this should be kept deleted. I was and am, and I thoguht my earlier long comment made that clear. I outlines wayus in which a rewritten articel could be created and need not go through this process, adn I opined that the current version should be speedied as a recreation of previously validly deleted content. I still think it should be speeied, ut the tag I put on was removed byu another editor, and i won't get into a revert war over it. But if someone else were to tag it, i wouldn't hesitate to do the deletion. So, to make myself clear, my view above was, and still is Keep deleted with no prejudiuce agaisnt the later creation of a substantially different artilce that addresses the conerns raised at AfD. DES 15:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid Vfd. Grue 18:56, 25 October 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.