Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:37, 7 November 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

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics

November 6

Southern Ivy League

Please review the deletion of Southern Ivy League. This is a widely used colloquial term in the South, and it was deleted by people with no regional connections. (In fact, it was deleted by someone who lives in Malaysia and has no idea what the educational system in the US South is like.) I am a Southern academic, and I hear this term often. It was acknowledged to be a colloquial term in the article, but it was deleted by people who just did not like the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandy (talk • contribs) 19:10, November 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The AfD for this article is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League.--Allen3  21:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse (keep deleted). Valid AfD. Whether the AfD nominator may or may not have heard the term due to geographical issues is immaterial. The primary issue raised by the AfD is the fact that the article provided no sources and was thus deemed unverifiable. Until reliable sources are provided to demonstrate the basic claims of the article the AfD should stand. --Allen3  21:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you for your thoughts, Vandy. The participants in the WP:AFD for this article, found here, came to a pretty convincing consensus—they were, in fact, nearly unanimously in favor of deletion (7D-1K), with your opinion being the sole dissenting one. I do not disbelieve you when you say you've heard the term for 20 years (I've heard "Southern Ivies" myself, though not for as long). However, please note that the participants did not decide on deletion based on whether or not they had heard the term; on the contrary, it was a recurrent theme in the debate that the claims made in the article were not sourced. Properly sourcing claims to reputable works and references is a particularly important tenet of Misplaced Pages editing; since the encyclopedia is a wiki that is open to editing by anyone with an internet connection, statements and claims made in articles should be always referenced, in accordance with the documents WP:V and WP:RS. It is the only way to ensure the relative reliability of the articles. As such I find myself persuaded that the AFD reached the correct conclusion, and endorse their decision. However, this being a wiki, you are always free to recreate the article, taking care to address the criticisms made in the AFD about the original (ie. please properly source the article if you are going to rewrite it; articles that are recreated without significant improvements are liable to immediate deletion without further debate). If you would like to obtain the text of the deleted article to help with rewriting, this can be easily arranged. Kind regards encephalon 21:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) As I noted in the debate, I have heard the term, but it is not used with consistency or frequency. I once heard a student at East Carolina University claim that institution was a "Southern Ivy." The term is puffery, and is not formalized in any way that I know of (or that was demonstrated in the article.) Xoloz 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Songs in triple meter

Please review the deletion of this article. People were inferring inclusion criteria from things written on the afd discussion page rather than from the article itself where it clearly stated that the only inclusion criterion for a song is that it be in either 3/4 time or 6/8 time. this criterion is not arbitrary. It is specific and simple. Many people voting did not understand time signatures and were voting because they were sick of 'listcruft' in general and musical 'listcruft' in particular. I applaud the effort to keep shoddy lists off of of wiki, but I believe my article got unfairly caught up in the middle of a debate of a much larger issue/problem. I believe that the frustration stemming from genuine 'listcruft' colored the thoughts and votes of wikipedians who are probably fairly objective people overall. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.96.24 (talk • contribs) 22:36, November 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: AfD discussion located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter --Allen3  22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse/Keep Deleted I voted for deletion on grounds of unmaintainability. 3/4 is a common time; "list of song with irregular time" is a list, and is fine. This list is similar to "list of love songs", so innumberable as to make any attempted list useless as hopelessly deficient and incomplete. Xoloz 04:05, 7 NovembeT 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted. Seems valid to me. the creator said that he made the page "in an effort to show that 3/4 and 6/8 has had a resurgence in popularity and commercial vitality". Well, that can be said in a sentence and mentioned in one of several articles (or more than one of several) and backed up with references without having to start listing every conceivable example of how it has had this resurgance. Another unmaintainable list, which would contain every minuet and waltz to say the least. -R. fiend 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted, the list could theoretically reach infinite length, which tells me that it isn't a very well defined list to begin with, and I don't see procedural problems with the deletion. Titoxd 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Golden Sun Password

Please review the deletion of this article. Votes in favor of keeping the article were pouring in. Mailer Diablo asserted that these votes were by sock puppets. This is not so. The following two individuals are not sock puppets. They have only visited this article because this is the only article in Misplaced Pages which is of interest to them.

Keep Misplaced Pages's purpose is to give information right? Well, this article gives information for the Gameboy Advance game, Golden Sun. It will help new players and/or other people who play this game understand Golden Sun's password system. It also helps the player as if you don't have the original Golden Sun, you don't have a password to use. People who just bought this game (part 2) can simply choose a password from the list to use. Isaac

and

• Keep wikipedia is to inform people. This article will serve people to understand everything they need for Golden Sun and it's password system. Those who say it doesn't are only willing to troll. Mamsaac

There would be many more votes if there was an article-discussion location for the votes. Also each person contributing passwords was a keep vote.

User: CobraGT 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision, keep deleted. The AFD was valid, the undeletion request does not provide any significant new information to the debate, the page itself goes against Misplaced Pages policy, and the closer has the privilege to discount voters with few edits in the project (as sockpuppets) or who remained anonymous. There already is an article for the game, so what more do you want? Misplaced Pages isn't Everything2. Titoxd 05:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid Afd; the "votes" referred to in the nomination above are both unsigned (or, perhaps, defectively signed), so they must be considered null and void. The rest were discounted within closer's discretion. The article is also plainly in violation of policy, a consideration the closer likely weighed in finding consensus. Xoloz 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Xoloz. *drew 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• alsoAnother independent keep vote is If You Read Only One Thing, Make This It GameFAQs says its not the place for this, and frankly the purpose of Misplaced Pages may not be to store every little thing for every little game, it is meant to compile the knowledge of it's user in a way that makes it conveniant. I see no problem in allowing this page to continue, and people that have a bone to pick with GameFAQs shouldn't take it out on this rather nice idea.
  • It is definitely of importance that these are not socket puppets.(i) There are many who benefit from an article on the Golden Sun Password (ii) The mini-administrator lacks sufficient fluency with nuances of language to realize that these are all independent personalities (iii) The mini-administrator is of the belief that his cleverness gives him the power of ascertaining fact.CobraGT

November 4

Sonic: Time Attacked

The article went to the deletion list because the game was not official. There's no rule against articles about fan made games or another fan made material, as long as it's notable enough. The page was deleted with only 3 votes. Sonic: Time Attacked is considered by many the most notable fan game ever created. Doing the Google Test with it, only searching on english websites with the game name on quotes, gave about 579 results --Mark the Echidna 18:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn. This game is of remarkable popularity among Sonic fans. The article itself is not illegal and does not infringe any copyright laws. It really should be undeleted. --200.150.31.74 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) — the article was created in January, has a good few edits and is beyond a stub. It might be reasonably notable. Although the Afd delete was valid, very few people were interested in it: sometimes five days is too short. --Gareth Hughes 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• The Afd debate was here. It got 2 delete votes and 1 keep vote, noted as an aeditors first edit, whcih the closer might reasonably have discounted. The reasons specifed for deletion were "...fangame, not official" and "software equivalent of fanfic". The qyuestion of notability was not rasied, but might well have been. The article seems to have been fairly detailed and was not at all a stub -- i didn't check the sources. The AfD was valid, but very slim. OTOH no new reason has been provided above. I am torn on this one, but finally come down as overturn deletion and relist on AfD to allow for a broader consensus one way or the other. If this is done, i hope and trust that the clsoer will be strict about discounting possible sockpuppets and meatpuppets. DES 18:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Second. I really WOULD like to just have it undeleted and leave it at that, but the fact it's a fan-created project leads to ambiguous notability. Redoing the AfD, perhaps with a little more fanfare, would help some. Still, I'd like to see the article undelted, if only because that would mean Sonic Robo Blast 2 would be next in line, and I'd REALLY not like to see that deleted. --Shadow Hog 01:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete). In addition to the fact that the AfD discussion had very few participants, the sole justification provided by the two "delete" voters (the fact that the game is fan-created) is entirely invalid. The subject's notability and the condition of the article (which evidently was fairly solid) were not addressed, so these votes should not have carried any weight. —Lifeisunfair 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fan fiction is generally considers alomst automatically non-notable, and it takes a large showing for any fanfiction work to survive AfD. Similar issues exixt in this case, and the extra showing of clear notability was not IMO made in the article as it stood. DES 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This game isn't comparable to fan-written stories (which almost never reach a high level of fame). A video game needn't be commercial to be notable, and the one distinction between this game and a 100% original work is the fact that it's based upon pre-existing characters (which only increases the likelihood of popularity). If this particular video game is non-notable (and I have no opinion on the matter), that's a valid reason to advocate its deletion. This issue, however, should be raised at AfD. The existing discussion contains no such justification. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, fan-created games are by nature nn. User:Zoe| 05:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Fuckin' Counterstrike. Who cares about it? Phil Sandifer 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Or maybe MarioWeen, a fangame that was actually featured on G4...
• Keep deleted, no real problem with the process aside from it being briefly discussed, and there are no guarantees that there's going to be more participation in a second AFD. Titoxd 05:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, the low-participation vote suggests that this is not a very reflective sample. No reason it shouldn't get another chance. Obviously the vote will now be a bit more publicized and should stand for awhile. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So an AfD should keep getting relisted until it reaches the results you want? User:Zoe| 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you'll be weighing in on College of Wooster Greeks below? Phil Sandifer 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but an AfD result (of any kind) should not be viewed as sacrosanct. Plenty of articles have been listed several times, with consensus for deletion finally established after several failed attempts. Is it your position that this should permanently bar the inclusion of such an article? I presume that it is, given the fact that you recently made the unilateral decision (without prior notice or discussion) to repeatedly delete an article that shared its name and theme — but not its text — with a different article that had been deleted several months earlier (after which point the subject attained clear notability). —Lifeisunfair 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but it should get relisted if there is substantial reason to believe that the results obtained were not or are no longer reflective of the views of the community (i.e., that the process failed). In this case, our bases for believing this are the small turnout of the vote and the new arguments presented by the nominator. The article was deleted because it was a fangame; the nominator here has now explained why, as such, it is encyclopedic. A new vote informed by these important arguments may provide a different result. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. Original AFD had to little participation to accurately determine concensus. The fact several people are asking for undeletion here shows this. Relisting and informing all original voters + the ones in this review is a good idea. A 2 delete, 1 keep can hardly be called binding. - Mgm| 14:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Three votes is hardly enough to form a broad consensus, but there is a preexisting broad consensus that fan-generated works are generally non-notable. There does not appear to be any substantiation that this is "the most notable fan game ever created" besides an absurdly low google count. Gamaliel 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Meh. undelete and relist. 3 votes isn't much of a consensus, no matter how the voting went. Give the proponents a chance to make their case that this is one of the few examples of a notable fan game. If they can't make such a case, I and many others I'm sure will vote to delete it this time. -R. fiend 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist per C. Parham and R. fiend. In some cases, I do think sparse participation can raise due process concerns. As an aside, I am impressed that the keep voter managed to sign the vote and create a userpage (although, of course, discounting the vote was within discretion.) Xoloz 07:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Bad reason for deletion, excellent article. --Tony Sidaway 07:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/Relist (Undelete). Looks like the correct call on Drini's part but now new and good reasons which establish notability which were not presented at the AFD have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ammar ibn Yasir

Very notable Sahaba, should not have been deleted in the first place. Ill work on it. --Striver 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Copyright violation — This was deleted as a copyright violation. You copied the article from http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Spa/7220/ammar.html and http://al-islam.org/restatement/71.htm. The article was deleted for this and no other reason. --Gareth Hughes 13:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copyvio. Feel free to write a new article in its place though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nayla bint Farasa

I want to elaborate on her, i need her article to be able to do that. --Striver 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (keep deleted) — although she is relatively notable, the article was deleted (afd) because it consisted of one sentence. Her role should be elaborated within the article of Uthman, and, if there is enough material, split off into a separate article. --Gareth Hughes 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• If Striver wants to work on it and make something more informative, I suggest that we undelete and userfy to his userspace where he can expand it at his leisure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why bother, if it is one sentence? Why not just quote it here? --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There were some stub templates, headings and external links which make that difficult. I have made a temporary undeletion and moved the article to his userspace. I think it is fairly common practise to make such undeletes for moves to userspace. It is now at User:Striver/Nayla bint Farasa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Valid AfD. While I suspect that this person might have some importance within Islam, the deleted article contained no information useful to someone not familiar with the faith explaining why she is considered notable. A new article that contains appropriate context information would be useful. --Allen3  15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sjakkale's action. If this gets expanded, the entire history will be retained, including whatever was done prior to deletion. - Mgm| 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

November 3

Matthew stecker

Moved to user page, when clearly expressed an assertion of significance. Should go through AFD if there is objection.

• Overturn speedy/list at AfD with a sigh. Pretty clear vanity, but there is the assertion of a "pivotal role", and enough information about the companies cited to determine veracity of claims made. If Mr. Stecker wants to make a case at AfD, let the case be made, though I personally presume it will fail. Xoloz 05:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep userfied - Why clog up AfD with a clear case of self-written biovanity? FCYTravis 15:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: anyone who userfies a page should always leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why. This sort of thing shouldn't need to be discussed at deletion review. As for the merits of the speedy, I endorse the speedy as a proper application of A7. I see no assertion of notability here. However, a message on the talk page saying, "this was already speedied once, we're going to try Afd now" should be (I hope) enough to keep it from being speedied again. Friday (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• If this was a move to userspace rather than a speedy, then it doesn't belong here. if anyone disagrees with the move they should restore it to article space. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was a move to userspace... I initially speedied it, then realized it was a likely case of autobiography, so I restored it and userfied it. FCYTravis 19:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnyard (2006 film)

Deleted under CSD G4, which reads "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy." This article survived AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barnyard (2006 film), and thus cannot fall under G4, regardless of speedies BEFORE the AFD.

• Overturn. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've fixed this as follows: I deleted the protected page (thus unprotecting it), I wrote a decent stub in place of the trashy garbage that AfD thought was good material, and have restored all the previous revisions, since all the speedies came after the AfD. Frankly, I don't know what AfD was thinking (and it strikes me that the closer possibly didn't look at the article when no-consensusing a two-thirds debate), and the speedies would have been valid A1 if not for the AfD. Anyway, we've now got a decent enough stub, and I will look 'unfavourably' upon the editor who reverts my stub (anons with an edit summary problem included). -Splash 16:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Someone can take it to AfD on crystal ball grounds if they like. The IMDb page hasn't been updated in a year. -Splash 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is. While people who voted to keep the original crap need to have their heads checked, Splash's new stub should be pretty uncontroversial. If anyone really cares, they can feel free to AfD it again (the original result was borderline, I would have closed as delete), but it would probably just waste all our time. -R. fiend 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is a page for this already at Barnyard (film) (the proper title) - the (...2006 film)" was part of a spate of additions of movies listed as "...2006 film)". Part of Splash's contents should be merged with the Barnyard (film), and Barnyard (2006 film) should at least be redirected, if not re-deleted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Right. I will merge them. But there are no grounds whatsoever for deleting the resultant redirect! If nothing else it would be an obvious violation of the GFDL, as usual, unless someone copies histories onto talk pages. -Splash 21:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Turn over Splash and spank him. If he continues to perform in this manner, producing good articles and cleaning up messes with his clear decisive action, our whole carefully contructed bureacratic machine will collapse. Enough of this silly common sense stuff!
  brenneman 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and keep redirect, not that the redirect will get use but only because redirects are cheap per Jeffrey and Splash. Marskell 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one article, don't care which. It doesn't seem like "crystal ball" material since it's a major studio release that has a trailer already and must be pretty far along. It seems to me that if they somehow decide not to release it at this point it should still have an article just to document what happened. Note that it does look (judging by the trailer) like complete and total poo, but that's not a deletion criterion either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly McGee

Deleted under CSD A7, which reads, in full ""An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion of vanity articles."(emphasis mine) The entry in the deletion log reads "content was: 'Adam Levine's ex-girlfriend. She was in Maroon 5's This Love video. She dated Adam from early 2003 to late 2004. she is a former m" This appears to be an assertion of notability.

• Overturn and List on AFD Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC). I am trying not to bite the new admin, but can someone review the deletion log, please?
  • Please don't bite the person not biting the new admin. Properly deleted under g4 (though deletion under a7 would be impropper.)Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelly McGee. -Splash 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it alone per Splash. Friday (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• (After 2 edit conflicts) I was going to vote to overturn and relist, as per the nom, but since there was a previous AfD, Overturn and delete per G4. DES 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: as Splash noted, a valid CSD G4. Note that the deleting admin did cite CSD G4, but also seems to have misunderstood CSD A7. --- Charles Stewart 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an admin call. encephalon 21:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the primary reason was G4. Should not have done A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• The original article was probably never a deletion candidate--at most it should have been merged to her boyfriend's article or (perhaps) to the more famous Robbie Williams with whom she was associated. AfD screws up occasionally, and obviously did so here. Undelete all versions and revert to the version which was AfD'd. Needs references, of which there are many available including interviews with her boyfriend, articles about the rock video in which she made an appearance, etc. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, 'Why, he stumped his toe.'" --Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously. -R. fiend 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Riot Siren

Orig. AFD CSD A7, which this was closed under reads, in full "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion of vanity articles."(emphasis mine) A band is not a person.

• Relist or Overturn and Delete (not speedy) per consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is no means to speedy an article on a band, unless it's A1, or something, which this wasn't. It was a pretty terrible article, however, as the AfD demonstrates. I think the best way to repair the process is to undelete and resume the listing: it had only been up for a few hours and has only been down for a few hours. Unless anyone objects quickly, I think I will probably go ahead and do so, since this will minimise the out-of-processness. -Splash 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy and relist on AfD. I agree with Splash's view above. DES 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that the speedy wasn't properly justified by A7. However, consensus is already clear, so undeleting it seems downright silly. Also, the article is completely unverifiable. Why not just change the closure justification to "deleted via Afd" and leave it deleted? There will be no serious discussion of keeping this. Friday (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I said "unless", and Friday has offered an objection, but I decided to do this anyway. We frequently get slam-dunk straight-up deletes on AfD and there is no harm in letting them run for their time. Someone can close this on the dot of 5 days. It isn't really right to allow a debate to be left closed on the grounds of an improper speedy, particularly when the AfD nominator tacitly agrees that it isn't a speedy. -Splash 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• As long as this is deleted, I don't much care how. But really, this is such an obvious delete that common sense dictates it's speediable. A band that has yet to even practice? Hell, I'd speedy it as nonsense, as a band that hasn't practiced is not a band, but 4 guys who own instruments and have chosen a common name with which to refer to themselves. This also brings up a point, if 2 people are listed under the same puerile vanity article ("Jim and Joey Ploober are 2 awesome kids from Philly. They're brothers. They rock") is it not a valid A7 because it is not about a real person but about two real people? And is an article stating "Doctor Awesome and his Tadpoles of Descrepency is a band consisting of Mike, Jim, Sal, Arnold and Gooch. They haven't learned to play instruments yet, but they will, and they'll record the best music ever" not a speedy, but "Ernie Clapps is a singer/songwriter trying to make it big" is because the former is a band and the latter is a solo artist? I think we have to rely on common sense a bit more, and less on technicalities. -R. fiend 17:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this. I seldom agree with R. fiend on issues regarding deletion, but the argument that a band that hasn't even practiced is not actually a band is a truism. It's nonsense, just as a group claiming to be a corporation that hasn't actually incorporated would be nonsense as well. This isn't a valid A7, but it is nonsense, so speedy the thing already. Unfocused 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• What R. fiend said. Splitting an article about 2 awesome kids into 2 articles about one kid each would be a totally legitimate edit. Speedy deleting both of those 2 new articles would be totally legit also. But why jump through silly hoops just to be in compliance with the letter of the rules? Let's stop fetishizing process over product, and work on an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Splitting an article about 2 awesome kids into 2 articles about one kid each would be a totally legitimate edit. Speedy deleting both of those 2 new articles would be totally legit also. LoL. You certainly get points for ingenuity, Friday. encephalon 20:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess. :) I was trying to point out the utter absurdity of trying to go strictly by "the letter of the law" when such loopholes exist. I haven't been going out of my way to point this out, but many, many things could be speedy deleted "legitimately" by a doing a bit of creative editing first. I suppose there are those who would be appalled at such an idea, though, so I'm going to slink back into hiding now and pretend I never mentioned this. :) Friday (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• No need to do any slinking, Friday. :) You are very perceptive. The CSD were constructed to be narrowly applied, out of concern that a single pair of eyes cannot be trusted to determine an article's worth infallibly, every time. But to construct a narrowly defined set of criteria, it had to be, by necessity, 'artifical.' It works with good faith admins, and it can work better with helpings of common sense, but the surface efficiency of the process sometimes leads us to forget that the construct is not 'natural'; the issues you point out reveal its artificial nature. At the most fundamental level, what we're all trying to do is to maintain some standards for the encyclopedia. An article that is in accord with the fundamental standards (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Copyrights, WP:NOT) will not be lawfully deletable. An article that can cross over to speedy territory merely with a single edit is probably actually very poor. encephalon 21:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, if we could get every admin on the project to agree to use "tag & bag" on the speedies, so at least we know there were two sets of eyes looking at an article and that the article sat in the "visible to regular users but is about to be speedy deleted" category for a short little while, I think you'd find broad support of expanding the CSDs. Otherwise, just be as thoughtful and considerate of new users and honest contributors as you can, use inoffensive comments and edit summaries (NO "burn with fire", "nuke from orbit", "--cruft", et. al.), and accept disagreements gracefully, and no one important will ever be upset with you. (Unless of course you get overly involved with the politics of user blocking and free speech.) Unfocused 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Enough's enough. I was reluctant to do this at first because the article was brought here, but I've deleted it now. Not per a CSD, though, although several people offered criteria they believed were appropriate. I've simply deleted it per the Afd. 5 days is a typical case, not a requirement. Consensus was, shall we say, abundantly clear. However, if someone disagrees, please just go ahead and undelete it and let the Afd continue rather than trying to decide what to do here. Friday (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Modojo

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Modojo and DelLog
Modojo.com may not be as popular as your standards require, however, the forum community is quite large and has been around longer than modojo.com. The community has 2.6 million posts and 7300 members. More information can be found here: http://www.big-b oards.com/board/285/ plucas 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Relist unless given some compelling story. AfD was, umm, odd? Is there something to the history I'm not seeing, and how did T's deletion come about? - brenneman 05:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like somebody nominated it for AfD, and before (or shortly after) its listing was finished, it was A1 speedied. No bad-faith on Tox's part, obviously, just a time thing. AfD underway means contested speedy, which results in Undelete (possibly speedily) to let process run. Xoloz 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, that is exactly what happened. I saw the speedy tag, thought it was either patent nonsense or a newbie test (also speediable), so I sent it the way of the phonograph. The article was nowhere close to the state it is now. Titoxd 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• This discussion can now be closed. The only deletion to this article was a speedy-deletion as patent nonsense - a speedy-deletion which is not being contested. The current version of the article is not the same content and does not qualify for the "repost" speedy criterion. As Xoloz notes, a regular AFD on the new version has now been initiated and should be allowed to continue. Rossami (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Can someone help me understand what is going on with the undeletion log. It looks to me like the original speedy was applied too fast (From WP:CSD: Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it.): the article received 14 edits in 12 minutes, then the page was speedied 4 minutes later. But then there is another entry in the log is 30 mins later, whose effect I cannot fathom. --- Charles Stewart 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There was only one deletion...at 0354UTC 3 November 2005. -Splash 18:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So what was JJay's edit: adding a template to get it speedied? Is there a page that explains Special:Undelete? --- Charles Stewart 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. Anything that appears under 'Page history' is the editing history that would appear under the history tab if restored. Only those actions that appear in the 'Deletion log' section are to do with actual deletion/restoration by admins. -Splash 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, so JJay was overenthusiastic in adding the CSD notice. I'll pop a note on his/her talk page. Thanks for the explanation. --- Charles Stewart 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Tar and feather the admin that speedied it. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoxd (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Golgothian Sylex

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Golgothian Sylex
JIP deleted this article despite two "keep" votes and two "delete" votes. Both delete votes were from users that were obviously ignorant of and biased against Magic: The Gathering storylines, however, he ignored my vote because I'm interested in Magic. Huh? --Slobad 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Looks like a valid AfD. I count it was 3-to-1 to delete. Andrew Levine, Saberwyn, and Proto on the delete side, one valid user (Slobad) and a non-existant user (Vestdan) on the keep side. Since Vestdan doesn't exist, its vote isn't counted, leaving it 3-to-1. Unless I'm really missing something here, this looks like a simple clear-cut case without much irregularity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as Starblind explained so well. Besides, it's a magic card. -R. fiend 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete The article isn't about the card. --Slobad 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse the closer's decision (keep deleted). Slobad made his/her case during the initial discussion and failed to persuade the community. It does not appear to me that the closing admin ignored Slobad's opinion, only that he correctly ignored the sockpuppet. I see no process problems here. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure (Keep Deleted) per Rossami. Xoloz 06:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse, although I wouldn't oppose a history-only undeletion if Slobad desires to merge this content into a larger article on the MTG storyline that this relates to. android79 17:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• What android said. encephalon 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. We should not even be considering articles like this for deletion. Again, AfD got it wrong, as occasionally happens. At most merge with Magic: The Gathering or some other suitable article. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Here's the text of the article:

The Golgothian Sylex is an artifact from Magic: The Gathering. It is described as a large bowl of a copper-like metal, and there are curious glyphs on it, which roughly translate as "Use to wipe the world clean, to topple the empires, to start again".

During the war between Urza and Mishra, the Sylex was activated by Urza in the final battle on the island of Argoth. The resultant devastation not only destroyed the island and decimated the nearby continent of Terisiare, but altered the climate of Dominaria, sending the world into an ice age.

After this event, it was unknown whether the Sylex was destroyed after its use. Centuries later, during the Acclaim/Armada Comic series Wayfarer, the planeswalker Ravidel threatened to create a second blast of devastation over Corondor with the newly recovered Sylex. His plan however, was stopped by a young planeswalker named Jared Carthalion after using a two-spell combination.

The card itself, from the Antiquities expansion, is almost useless in the modern game. It is one of the cards known as "expansion hosers" that, when used, would remove all cards from it's expansion set from the game. Golgothian Sylex would only work on cards that came directly from the Antiquities expansion, and not reprints from other sets.

It could be merged with Terisiare or Urza. --Slobad 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

David Wong

This article should be undeleted because it is about a man was wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. Eventually he was exonerated. Genb2004 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and speedies. Actually, the second, copyvio, speedy was probably a hasty A8 since I don't think it comes from a commercial website. But now that it's down, we really shouldn't knowingly restore copyright infringing text to satisfy internal processes. It appears to be from , by the way. I wonder if such a source may be PD, although absent a release to that effect, it isn't. The third deletion was of an article reading only:

  "David Wong was wrongly convicted of a crime that he did not commit. Eventually he was exonerated and finally freed."

• which is fine for an nn-bio as it stands (it certainly doesn't assert that anything in the text is notable). The original debate was horribly puppeteered for reasons I can't fathom: the debate was an overwhelming delete, and clearly people are not persuaded by the claim of meeting WP:MUSIC. There is no new information offered here, the nominator would not have changed the debate and I do not think the encyclopedia is better with the article restored. -Splash 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hang on, I'm a little bit confused. There are two seperate David Wongs here. The first one, correctly deleted by AfD was just some random lawyer who plays the piano and, according to AfD has a serious case of egoism (there are some great quotes in the debate). On the other hand, the copyvio attempt, whilst a copyvio, was about someone completely seperate and reading the source (see link above), an original article on him should certianly be allowed to be written. The nn-bio was still ok, though, in a prima facie sense. So I think endorse closure, keep deleted, and unprotect is what we should be doing, and we can just set aside the specific request in this nomination. -Splash 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, and unprotect' per Splash's excellent work. Xoloz 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It sounds to me from Splash's summary that neither version of the article would merit CSD A7, as per Hall Monitor's comment on Special:Undelete/David_Wong. From Splash's description only CSD G4 or A8 might apply. --- Charles Stewart 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (edited after Charles Stewart 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I just speedy deleted David Wong (pianist), as, apparently, a recreation of one version of this article. User:Zoe| 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse. The first deletion was an in-process VfD. The second was a clear copyvio speedy: the article reads like a copy-and-paste of a newspaper article. The third was a clear non-notable-bio speedy: people are convicted and exonerated all the time. --Carnildo 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Splash's argument. *drew 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

November 2

New World (comic)

The Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/New_World_(comic) was closed without contacting anyone from the actual comic being depicted, Robert Maupin, the colorist or Scott Clements, the artist. The information they gave generally lacked in information and may of influenced others to delete it. The webcomic met the requirements to be listed on wikipedia set down by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Webcomics. The Talk:New_World_(comic) holds more information then they found. I feel that at the very least they should of contacted either me or the artist about the deletion. At the very least I would like to get a copy of the history changes so that I might keep the information on personal backup.

• Keep deleted. There is absolutely no reason why the creators of a comic need to be consulted when discussing the deletion of an article. -R. fiend 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Which of the proposed notability criteria does the comic meet? Phil Sandifer 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Misplaced Pages has absolutely no obligation to contact you. You should have come to Misplaced Pages, and I'm glad you now have. If you can offer the kind of information Snowspinner asks for, and that information was not in the previous article, and that information does meet the (still heavily debated) WP:COMIC suggestions, I imagine the debate can be re-run. The information on the talk page is barely coherent, however and really don't offer any trace of notability, WP:COMIC or no. 5000 hits per year is tiny. If new information is not forthcoming, endorse closure and keep deleted. -Splash 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising for the guideline, I mean. WP:COMIC is dead, long live WP:WEB. This forked proposed guideline has been, um, spooned? Calling all brave souls to come and weigh in to this exciting discussion. So that we can have less XfD/DR/RfD/Xyz over this sort of thing. - brenneman 01:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) - Valid Afd. The article was properly tagged for the entire length of the AfD discussion, allowing all interested parties to learn about the AfD. As for WP:COMIC, there is a reason why it has been changed into a redirect to WP:WEB. --Allen3  01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment An easy option would be to re-write this from scratch in a manner substantially different from the original. This wouldn't need to go to AfD, although I'm sure that someone would put it there regardless, so do try to make something that will survive. If your tastes ran to that sort of thing, you could even request a history only undeletion. Nice to have an admin run an "identical" checker over it to avoid a G4 (?) speedy, though. - brenneman 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Or even better, find some larger "chunk" that will clearly survive AfD and incorporate this material in there. I don't know, the production company, the artist collective, something. If there is any information there at all, it will only be served by being presented in a meaningful way, so go and write something. - brenneman 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Valid AfD with no keep votes at all, including the usually webcomic-inclusionist Snowspinner. The notion that WP has some obligation to notify a webcomic's staff when it gets deleted is downright silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if you look at my webcomics votes, they're a majority delete, I believe. [[User:
  • Okay I will accept this ruling fr now, I will got back and rewrite it fully then resubmit the article and see how that goes, we meat the minimum 100 comics, I think it has 150 or so, not including the fillers, and the comic has been around for several years. I would like to request a temporary history undeletion, so I can get the informatiuon that was already there. Robert Maupin 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks

The afd was clsoed early, apparently on the sole grounds that there had been a prior Afd with a no-consensus result. Overturn the closure and reopen the AfD listing. DES 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent example, made the more excellent by Snowspinner's closure remarks, of why the expansion of scope from VfU to DRV was the right thing to do. There is no reason to close the AfD early (though Snowspinner has a particular penchant for so doing), so overturn the closure, and relist. I'm tempted to do so speedily, since the closure is very obviously out-of-process. As ever, one should engage in a debate one disagrees with rather than tell those involved to shut up, which an early closure in this manner certainly does. -Splash 00:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open the existing AFD listing. The prior discussion was closed as a "no consensus" decision on 3 Oct 05. The prior discussion was certainly ambiguous enough to justify relisting after a reasonable time for edits and improvements. Few edits have been made in the month since the first decision was closed. The second decision was well on it's way to being a second "no consensus" decision when Snowspinner pre-emptively closed the discussion. His/her explanation for the early close is at variance with our traditional practice and was, in my opinion, out of order. As a community, we considered and rejected limits on renominations of articles. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "No consensus" means "Keep." And again - we cannot reasonably have limits on considering undeletion based on content while allowing endless nominations for deletion based on content. Phil Sandifer 01:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "No consensus" means there was no agreement on what to do. It means we do nothing. -Splash 01:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Keeping an article is not an action. No consensus means we do not delete. Articles that are not deleted are kept. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No consensus means no consensus. It means no agreement. Not all articles that are not-deleted are kept outright: many are merged, redirected, transwikied, userfied, categorified etc etc. I'm not among the group who refuses to see shades of grey. I thought it was these shades of grey that was one of the reasons for deferring so heavily to admin judgement in closing AfDs. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • In the absence of agreement to do anything unusual to an article - delete, merge, or otherwise - articles are kept. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Bullshit. -R. fiend 02:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Civil - Easy there mate. - brenneman 02:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • OK then - in the absence of a consensus to do something to an article, what do we do to it? Phil Sandifer 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • There are numerous options, including merging and/or redirecting. I know the Tony Sidaway school of thought on AfD states that unless about 90% of all voters agree on an exact course, the only thing that can possibly happen is the article remains untouched forever. Thats why we see various AfDs with zero keep votes kept as is because there is "no consensus" to do anything else. Most people see that as BS, however. -R. fiend 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • I am not sure what issues you have with Tony, but merging and redirecting are still doing "something" to an article. Absent any of those, articles are kept - they are not "no consensused" Phil Sandifer 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • We simply take no action since none was mandated by the debate. We call that "no consensus" because we acknowledge that there was no agreement. No agreement that it should be kept, nor deleted, nor merged nor anything. We don't pretend that a lack of agreement to do anything should be reported as a firm agreement to keep. Yes, of course the article will stand, but saying that the outcome of the debate was to keep, when the outcome of the debate was that people didn't reach agreement requires a considerable lack of subtlety. To later cite such a debate as saying "keep" when it said "we don't know" requires plain misunderstanding. -Splash 02:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • That's absurd - the default position is that we accept an editor's contributions. Only in extraordinary circumstances do we delete, remove, or otherwise eliminate someone's contributions. To say otherwise is to create the absurd notion that an article needs some special permission to exist. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Hmmm? Who mentioned deleting? I said do nothing. Anyone can redirect or merge without seeking permission, and there is no extraordinary circumstance required to do so. All I said was that "we don't agree" isn't "we think it should be kept". I don't know where you pulled deletion from. -Splash 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • And on R. fiend's point, he is of course correct that most of the debates without a single keep that get kept should have had something else done because working out that people didn't think it should stay isn't at all hard. We take the route that will likely satisfy a consensus of participators: if there is no such route available, and I agree that sometimes there isn't, then it's a no consensus as I described above. Of course, any editor remains free to reverse such an action at will. -Splash 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. The first AfD was borderline anyway (3 deletes, a keep and a merge). The second was less close, but closed early (and most of those votes seemed to rely more on the questionable keep from vote #1, rather than the merits of the article, which is generally a poor way of doing things). Give it a real vote this time, and judge it on its merits, rather than the ambiguous result of a previous AfD. -R. fiend 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So we're making endless reconsiderations of content on AfD, but not here on Deletion Review? That doesn't seem wrong to you? Phil Sandifer 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep closed - if deletion review is not about content, then AfD should not be abused to repeatedly redo deletion debates until people get the answer they want. You can't have this one both ways - either content-based reconsiderations are allowed or they're not. The answer, picked over serious objection, was "not." Phil Sandifer 01:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm confused. I thought AfD was to discuss content. I must have been mistaken. And it's very tiresome to suggest that DRV has nothing at all to do with content and such a statement really does require you to refuse to read the blurb properly. It says in simple language that, if you have new information, you should by all means offer it, and it can then be taken to AfD...where content is reviewed properly. I suppose DRV deals with a prima facie case of new-information-or-not and then passes the job onto AfD if it finds such a case. I don't see what's wrong with that. DRV also deals with the correctness of the close: particularly where there is no new information available and so that route is closed. In this case, your reasoning for the closure was obviously wrong, so it should be fixed. It's an unfortunate fact that many requests that come here are RandomTeenageBand thinks they're famous, can't come up with any new information why they are, and all that's left to examine is whether someone misread the debate. That doesn't sound like heresy to me. -Splash 01:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that content relisting requires "substantial new information." What new information was added to the new AfD? If none, it remains a grotesque imbalance whereby keeps can be redone until they get deleted, but deletes can't be undone. Phil Sandifer 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There wasn't much new information in the new AfD, and I'll speculate that DRV would have chosen to not to overturn a properly closed AfD (such as the first). By forcing the issue, you've managed to give a good reason to run the debate in full. However, I see little wrong with regularly holding the whole encyclopedia up to scrutiny. We need more scrutiny, not less. Of course deletes can be undone, at which point they usually return to AfD: which is where the previous no consensus ended up. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No - deletes can't be undone. The undeletion policy was EXPLICITLY changed to forclose undoing deletions without evidence of "new information." A specific decision was made to make undeleting articles harder. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist This clearly isn't about content. It's about an out-of process close by an admin who took part in the debate. Who says we can't have it both ways, anyhew? Process is about making tools that help to streamline behavior. We mostly talk about validity of the XfD because that's usually the substatative issue. However, as per the header up above, when our monkey brains tell us that there is some merit to discussing content, we do. It's neither a foolish conformity nor wild chaos. - brenneman 01:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep closed Can't see the point of listing perfectly good articles on AfD. We're running an encyclopedia, not an aunt sally stall. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but the point of the listing would seem to be what the nominator stated in the AfD. Clearly, Purplefeltangel thought it wasn't a perfectly good article. She is entitled to make her case, as those who agree with her. You are not in a position to tell them to shut up because you fear what they are saying. -Splash 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• You are joking about it being perfectly good, right? Did you read this mess? It's all unsourced POV, indeed the purpose of this article is only to present original research. Remove the unverifiable stuff, and you've got nothing left. Friday (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is unverifiable - the bulk of it was, from my understanding, researched by going to special collections at Wooster and doing the research there, where all of this is well-documented. Phil Sandifer 01:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It's already been undeleted. Would anyone be offended if the deletion review stopped now? To me, the obvious things to do is redirect this to College of Wooster. The Afd was improperly closed. But the article is junk, and there's no point fixing it since it's about a bunch of unverifiable organizations. Also, national fraternities have been considered significant, but individual chapters have not. I'd do the redirect now, but I don't want to inconvenience anyone who's looking at the Deletion review. Actually, nevermind that. I've been bold and redirected. The previous version, for anyone watching this, is here. If anyone disagrees with the redirect, please feel free to revert it, I won't be remotely offended. Friday (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it was never deleted. DES brought this here per the new scope of DRV to examine a disputed keep, as he says in his nomination. -Splash 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, brain fart. Of course you're right. Anyway, why bring this here? It was obviously an improper Afd closure, anyone can see that. So the closure can be reverted by anyone who feels the need, without review here, right? Friday (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The case may be made that you could relist it - although I will contest that bitterly. But there is ABSOLUTELY no justification for taking an article that survived one AfD and was well on its way to surviving a second (albeit invalid) one and deleting all of its content in the name of making it a redirect. Phil Sandifer 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

When you summarily deleted a large number of debates and faced considerable criticism for doing so, you innocently said you were being WP:BOLD, until you were reminded that WP:BOLD doesn't speak about administrative activities to any useful extent. But here you are saying that in the course of normal editing, someone should not be WP:BOLD. Which they can be, and are positively encouraged to be. -Splash 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are sort of two options. 1)Just do it, because, as you say, the closure was obviously improper or 2)check that this is ok, first. The main intent of the change to DRV was to provide a steam-release before the need for admins to delete-war as happens too often. Now that there's a community forum I'm hopeful people will refrain from fighting. Perhaps I took too many optimism pills, but there we are. In this case, I'd be inclined to take 1), much as I said in my first comment. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ummm. A redirect is pretty clearly a "keep" on the k-d spectrum. - brenneman 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A merge is on the keep end - a "blank the article and replace it with a redirect" is in no way resembling a "keep." Phil Sandifer 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well in the "binary" AfD that I keep hearing so much about, such a redirect is a keep, in the sense that it's not a delete. People love to invoke the "binary" issue, but only when it suits them. -R. fiend 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to myself, I justified it by common sense. Do you object to all edits for some period of time, or just redirects? BTW, I find it bizarre that your edit summary accused me of redirecting against Afd consensus. It sure looked to me like you were trying to control the apparent "Afd consensus" with your closure. In fact, you seem to be way more worried about what you think the "rules" are than about consensus. Friday (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The previous AfD was to keep. I think that AfD should stand unless there's actually a pressing reason to redo the AfD. No such reason has been presented. If we're going to allowed the pernicious fighting of undeletion requests on the grounds of "no new content has been presented, you should have weighed in when you had the chance," which we do, it's absurd to allow AfDs to continue to go through without the same standards. Phil Sandifer 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What you think is fine. What if someone thinks different to you? You'll have to accept that that's fine too. They'd be less pernicious if you stopped being so, well... -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been two deletion debates now on an article that is probably one of the best-researched on Misplaced Pages. The guy who wrote this went to special collections and did the research necessary. Pernicious is treating his contributions like worthless detritus. Fighting not to treat hard-working contributors like we don't give a damn what they're doing isn't pernicious - it's maintaining central principles of respect that are integral to the project. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• (I'm going to be talking about content, or are we not doing that now?) Well, really, have a look at the article. Everyone should do the thing that they are best at, and this person's research may by orders of magnitude better than mine, but this article is average. Rather than fighting the deletion battle every so often in whatever the venue of choice is, try and get some people together and make this into brilliant prose. Because, if we are very frank, well written articles about hokum rarely make their way to AfD, but badly written articles about perhaps worthy subjects often find themselves nominated. Twice. - brenneman 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Except that that's a foolish effort - if I focus on improving an article during the five days of a deletion debate, I'm likely to see my effort get deleted. If I focus it on keeping the article, I can fix it at my leisure. Phil Sandifer 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment You know it's as if we were discussing two completely different articles. One article is the article that I can see that gives detailed information that is sourced and verifiable. The other article is this mythical "junk" that is apparently unverifiable. It's ridiculous, how can we be talking about deleting an article where good editors can't even agree amongst ourselves that it's unverifiable junk? Does everything ever written in Misplaced Pages have to be derived from a ten minute google search? --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Overturn and relist Clearly, this is contentious. These issues are best confronted at AfD, as debate at that forum removes a degree of abstraction from the review function performed here. Clearly, there are grounds for doing so (defect of process), and good reason besides (consensus is better achieved than assumed.) Xoloz 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Comment' - I note that the debate was 4 keep, 2 merge, 4 delete - there is no plausible way that the article would have made it to the necessary 14 additional delete votes to generate a consensus to delete. In light of what was clearly a strong forming consensus to not delete, I think it is a tremendous slap in the face to the people who have worked on this article to put it in what amounts to a third attempt to delete the content. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are correct, why did you not wait for the normal AfD period to end? I agree with comments made above that if an AfD reaches no consensus, we do not deleted or take any other action based on the AfD -- the article stays as it is and normal editing continues. But the point is that this AfD did not reach any valid result, because it was closed early for no obvious reason. User:Snowspinner belives that it was headed for a "no-consensus" result, and such a result was a not unlikely sequel to the AfD up to the point that it was closed. Therefre the Afd should be reopened. A final consensus to delete is possible, if perhaps not likely. A number of people obviously thought this worth deleting, albiet rather less than 2/3rds of those who expressed a view on the AfD. A clear keep consensu is also possibel, and would be a much stronger argumet agaisnt a future AfD nomination. DES 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Several people above asked why i brought this here. I did so as an improper close of an Afd -- in effect a speedy keep without clear consensus. I arguably could have unilaterally re-opened the AfD, but I would prefer not to simply override another admin's closing decision in that way. If the consensus where was that reopenign the AfD was a poor idea, I would take note and the matter would rest there. If there is agreement here to re-open, then we will see what further AfD commetns there are, and a proper close will occur in due time. I saw that seemingly sensible argumetns were beign made on both sides of teh AfD -- I do not yet have an opnion about the article per se, that is, how I would vote on the reopened AfD. DES 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First, we are not "voting". The count of opinions illuminates but does not automatically decide the issue. But even if we were strictly vote-counting, I feel that I have to comment on the numbers above. 4 keep and 2 merge could be outweighed by 12 deletes - only 8 more than had already commented, not 14 more. If you had allowed the discussion to run its course, the decision would very likely have again resulted in a "no consensus" decision. That is not the same as a clear consensus to "keep". Instead, it is a statement that the community is willing to give the article the benefit of doubt for a while but reserves the right to revisit the decision. Let the process work and in the meantime fix the article instead of arguing about it here. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you're just ignoring the two merge votes in your count? Phil Sandifer 15:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No. 4 keep + 2 merge = 6. (x-6)/x = 66% solves to x = 18 and (x-6) = 12.

Comment - In response to the presumption that "no consensus" means something other than keep... do you realize the implications of this? It codifies the idea that articles need special permission to exist. It codifies a widespread assumption of bad faith, whereby every article is in an ambiguous position until it's been codified as "kept." I cannot express how deeply awful this entire idea is, and how breathtakingly poisonous it is. Phil Sandifer 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Wiki may well collapse and cease to exist as a result. Or people may stop writing articles. Or everything might get deleted. Or, you could just calm down a little teensy bit and realise that "no consensus" is the outcome of the debate, and not a new status of article. It says, as I am repetitiously having to repeat, that the participants in the debate reached no agreement on what should be done. That's all. -Splash 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, no article here is ever completely safe. No one seriously disputes that our Lord Jimbo can do anything He wants. So, if one is going to have a breakdown over the fact that there is an infinestimally tiny probability any article may die at any time, one should have had that breakdown on Misplaced Pages, day one. Xoloz 05:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete/Overturn (or whatever the terminology du jour is) and relist on AfD. All this how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about what "no consensus" means might be fascinating to y'all, but the bottom line is that the AfD process, once started, ought to finish absent any really clear-cut reason for shutting it down early. And the fact that y'all are arguing about it means it ain't. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, it wasn't a keep result, it was a no consensus result, which means that the article should not be given the relisting protection given to kept articles. No consensus means that we didn't decide what to do, but we are going to have to decide eventually. Titoxd 19:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. I'm taken aback by Phil's patently out-of-process closure. Not only was the prematurity inappropriate, but he actually participated in the debate (voting to keep the article)! That's a clear conflict of interest, and the consensus to overturn the decision is equally clear. I'm tempted to do so myself, but there's no harm in allowing this discussion to run its course. —Lifeisunfair 20:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. encephalon 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) NB. I gather that there has been some discussion over whether it is better to relist the inappropriately closed AFD or begin anew with a fresh one. I would approach this question by considering that the users who participated in the AFD that was inappropriately closed have every right to have their opinions counted; for them to be discarded, before even being properly considered, would be unfair. This DRV discussion may also be useful to any new participants. I therefore urge that the wrongly closed AFD be re-opened with a good explanatory note from the editor who relists, linking this discussion as well (via a diff, it would gone by the time the AFD is put up). As to length of time, an AFD which has been off the logs for at least 5 days may well deserve the proper 5 days; I see little point in relisting if we were going to pull it in a day or two. encephalon 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the above plan. —Lifeisunfair 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Stacy Armstrong

I was sifting through old AFD/VFD archives and came across Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Armstrong. The debate was closed by User:AllyUnion as a no consensus keep, then unilaterally overturned by another administrator. Even though vote count shouldn't be everything when closing debates, my count puts this at 6d/4k. AllyUnion's close was within reasonable bounds and should not have been overturned. I think that the rule before VFU/DRV was expanded to include disputed keeps, was that closed debates stay closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting case... I agree that closures shouldn't be unilaterally overturned (except by the original closer), but this is clearly a case in dispute, so it shouldn't be kept outright either. Overturn (Undelete) and relist at AfD. Xoloz 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio from IMDb in all revisions (apart from the external links etc). So leave this version deleted, but allow recreation, if we have authority to do that here. -Splash 10:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It may not have been the most orthodox action, but AllyUnion at the time wasn't counting nominator's votes, as he/she should have. 6/3 (the actual result when sockpuppet Vagrant is discounted) is a delete in most people's books, and no one gave a compelling reason to keep an actress who has never been in a real movie. The original article was the creation of a few users who have a long history of using Misplaced Pages to promote who I have to assume are their friends. Besides, as Splash pointed out, it was a copyvio anyway. -R. fiend 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: What Splash says. --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent example of why we needed this page to be a full Deletion Review, not merely VfU. The closure and overturn occurred back in February - before this process was in place. Under normal conditions, I would endorse the original closer's decision as within the range of discretion. The second admin is more correct about the vote-count but some of the comments (on both sides) are weak or non-existent and might well deserve less weight. Looking at the article and at the IMDB site, I question Splash's finding that this is a copyvio. In the original deletion discussion, Xezbeth said on 31 Jan 05 that "This is the first person i've seen who has a blank imdb page." I can't help but wonder if IMDB is drawing their data from us. No vote yet... Rossami (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You have convinced me. Delete as a copyvio regardless of the prior debate. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Certainly if the IMDb article came first, this one's a copyvio (the fact that the lines are in a different order is moot: the overwhelming majority of the article is verbatim), but if we got the article first it may or may not be depending on who wrote the IMDb page. The fact that the lines in the IMDb article have been re-ordered in the first revision here into a better order, and the sentences written to start with "She has..." rather than just "Has..." makes me think the IMDb article is the original. Otherwise, the slightly better grammar would surely have been copy-pasted into IMDb? Anybody know how to work out when an IMDb page was made? -Splash 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If IMDB host more of our content than they can under fair use and do so without attribution then they are in violation of copyright law. How do we notify them? --- Charles Stewart 16:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO, it is unlikely that IMDb are hosting out content, as I said above. We are (or were) more likely to be hosting theirs. If, hypothetically, IMDb are hosting our content, then that may be OK if each of the authors has consented to this: although the material is released by Misplaced Pages under the GFDL, authors retain original copyright on their work. Now that is unlikely, of course, but still. Anyway: to reiterate, I am sceptical that IMDb copied us, despite the comment in the VfD. -Splash 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The GFDL is a "share-alike"/viral license. They cannot just incorporate WP material without syndicating what they incorporate it into. It looks to me that someone or other is violating someone's copyright. --- Charles Stewart 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Errr....that's what I just said! But anyway, I was making the technical point that each of the authors could have chosen to license their content to IMDb under some other license, since they each retain the rights to their work. They could have all got together and reached some agreement without needing to reach for WP. More likely, of course, is that if the IMDb article comes from ours then it is a copy-paste and therefore GFDL'd and they would need to do something about it. -Splash 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment We appear to have an article about her at Stacy Kernweis (her married name, judging from imdb), which is linked as "Stacy Armstrong" from Democrazy (film). I'm not sure if the current Kernweis article is a copyvio of the imdb page (it's not a direct copy, certainly.) Also, out of interest, R. fiend, what makes you say that Vagrant was/is a sockpuppet? -- AJR | Talk 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh, that's interesting. If we want to play with process, then Stacy Kernweis is a speedy as substantially identical recreation of deleted content. But we're not yet sure if that deletion was in process or not, and also a copyvio would never prevent recreation. However, Stacy Kernweis is a highly derivative work, very clearly based on the IMDb article. It's probably a copyvio since there is almost no creativity required to go from the IMDb article to ours. It is also very very similar to the deleted article, in fact only different in probably 10 words. If the Kernweis article is a copyvio, then the Armstrong article certainly is. -Splash 17:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - why do we defer so unerringly to administrator discretion when they close as delete, but allow unilateral overturnings on keeps? Phil Sandifer 17:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't. That's why it comes here for review. - Tεxτurε 18:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was really responding to some of the comments above. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Still, they do both refer to the situation as it used to be, when keeps could not be discussed and so any overturnings were necessarily unilateral and then had to be fought over somewhere once deleted. Usually that fight was in the deletion log, but occasionally here. Now, of course, a disputed keep result should be brought here so that unilateral overturning of any kind should be unneeded. Better, no? -Splash 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recreate as per original close. 6-3? Don't make me laugh. Relist if desired. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is slightly unusual. Discussions now over the appropriateness of the second admin's action are probably futile; for all we know he may have messaged AlleyUnion over the error and obtained his agreement with the deletion. The important issues before us concern the article's status. It is not wise to restore a copyright violation; no matter where editors find themselves on the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum for a given article, most editors have enough respect for this articlespace policy that suggestions to restore a copyvio are generally met with appropriate opposition. Rossami correctly points out the comment on the AFD attesting to a blank IMDB page; however, I am very sceptical that the current IMDB page is derived from WP, because:

1. I am unable to see how IMDB could have copied our page if they didn't have one in January, and ours was deleted shortly after.
2. It is exceedingly unlikely for IMDB to be collecting information on its entries from stubs on an open wiki; organizations like that normally have paid editors, copyeditors, journalists etc to obtain and present their data.
3. A WP stub which is almost word-for-word similar to another site, and provides an external link referencing that very site as the source of its information, is a good indicator that plagiarism has occured.

So please don't restore the copyvio. This is not in any way prejudicial to a lawful article on this person that meets Misplaced Pages's articlespace policies. encephalon 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said. However, one should note that IMDb, though not a wiki, does take submissions from the public (it doesn't shy away from promoting people, as we do). Read the "Caveat emptor" section in The Internet Movie Database article. The assertion that they "have paid editors, copyeditors, journalists etc to obtain and present their data" does not mean they don't rely on submissions as well. That, I believe, is why you can often find "uncredited" roles listed for minor actors (ie extras). It also means that the same individual could have submitted the same material to both sites independently, though barring any evidence of this, we cannot assume it is the case. -R. fiend 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• But of course, you're right. I remember now seeing invites to submit profiles on the site. Yes, that rather complicates matters. An author who writes text of their own and clicks the submit button on WP automatically releases it under GFDL. IMDB holds a more restrictive copyright, of course; however, I wonder if they have developed a policy for this kind of thing. But you're correct about what to do, irrespective of what their policy might be. If we find identical text we'd have to treat it as a copyvio on our end. encephalon 06:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

November 1

Zak Koretz (magician)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zak Koretz (magician) see also

I would like this article to be undeleted because if you call it a shameless self promotion, what do you call all of the listings written here... List of magicians
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.106 (talk • contribs)

• Rebuttal, actually this article is about a member of the Magic Castle, just like many of the magicians on that list, while I am not trying to equate myself to Houdini...I do consider myself skilled enough to be one of a short list of people under 21 who have passed the rigerous auditions to be admitted as a junior member of the magic castle (the current world champion magician Jason Latimer is a former junior member who graduated from the program several years ago). Additionally, I do perform at the magic castle and if you are in town, feel free to stop by on a Sunday and see my show. And as for Xoloz...A lot of the "magicians you have heard of" are DEAD so I don't think they would mind. Also, the Junior program is highly respected among magicians, and produces many of the newer and future greats of magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.106 (talk • contribs)

• I'd call list of magicians (which includes Houdini, Blackstone, Penn and Teller, David Blaine, James Randi, et al.) a list of people I've heard of, for the most part. If you think there is a non-notable magician there, nominate him for deletion. If you think Houdini is a non-notable magician, quit doing magic. As for the article, Endorse closer (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no defect of process or new information presented, nomination of poor quality (and possibly insulting to very famous magicians). Xoloz 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strangely enough, young friend nominator, 4 of the 6 people to whom I directly referred are still alive and performing. :) Study more magic. Xoloz 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly. The Afd was properly done. The article is unsourced and appears to be about some kid who does magic, which isn't remotely comparable to articles on verifiably famous magicians. Friday (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse, since I closed it, but Friday said it best: it's not even in the same league as Houdini et al. Titoxd 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Without any new information presnted here, and no suggestion that the nominator might have swung the debate and no error in process and no interest in having the article, there is no reason to reverse or re-run the AfD. I call List of magicians a navigational tool, by the way. Once you've had some media attention and acquired some outright notability, you can always try rewriting the article: if you have become genuinely notable, it won't be speedy deleted because it will include lots of new information not currently available. -Splash 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing new here. and as for if you call it a shameless self promotion, what do you call all of the listings written here... List of magicians, I'd say that unless you're suggesting that the late Harry Houdini, the late Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin, and the not-late Ricky Jay have been adding themselves to Misplaced Pages to bolster their limited public awareness, I'd call it a complete non-sequitor. --Calton | Talk 08:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: DRV request provides no grounds for undeletion. --- Charles Stewart 14:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Noteworthy magician's perform outside their magic club and get press attention (at the very least by magic magazines). - Mgm| 15:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. *drew 06:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your mom

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Your mom

I'd like this article to be considered for undeletion. I think there was a lack of information about the distinction between the slang "your mom" (a one-time retort) and the dozens, a back-and-forth contest that happens to often employ "yo momma is..." or "your mom's so..." phrases. Modern usages of "Your mom" are even further from the dozens in that they are not meant to be insulting, but almost as a nonsensical inside joke, or even as a parody on those who do use it as an insult. Example: "I just created a new Misplaced Pages page." "Your mom just created a new Misplaced Pages page!". An example of what the undeleted page might look like can be found here. Thanks to all who take the time to vote, even if this is a rather silly subject. Turnstep 01:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, as the people involved in the AfD (including myself!) clearly didn't realize the distinction. The article is currently a redirect, though it has bounced back and forth between that and something attempting to address the fact that "your mom" is something entirely separate. In any event, the redirect is inappropriate, because yo momma ≠ your mom when it comes to humor. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting... The page history shows signs of lost versions. It records a first deletion date that is 14 days before the first edit. I suspect there may have been some page-moves which are complicating our ability to trace the history. Looking at the different versions, I want to argue that this article should be deleted because all the non-vandalized and non-redirect versions I found were mere dictionary definitions, that is, they were discussions of the meaning, usage and origins of a word or phrase. Specifically, they were detailed discussions of the usage of the phrase. That kind of content is more lexical than encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Oddly, however, the option to transwiki the article to Wiktionary was never discussed. Instead, the overwhelming consensus was to redirect. I see no process problems with that decision. Reversing the redirect decision is a matter to be discussed on the respective Talk pages, not here. The redirect decision was carried out on 30 Oct at 19:09. Two minutes later, Brian0918 deleted the article without explanation. It was subsequently re-created and currently stands as a redirect (again). I can find no justification for the deletion. The article's current content is identical to the version that was deleted. Unless Brian can present a compelling justification for the deletion, I must conclude that the deletion was out-of-process. In the interim, I am going to carry out a history-only undeletion on the article. Any further discussion about whether this should remain a redirect or an independent article should be carried out on the Talk page. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rossami. I have started the relevant discussion. If there are no objections soon, I'll assume it is safe to remove the redirect. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for a disambig. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

October 31

List of song titles phrased as questions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions

I do not believe I have to give a proper reason for this undeletion wish. Rather, I'd ask those who deleted the list to explain to me how they define "unmaintainable". Does it mean that we delete an article when people work on it and it gets longer? <KF> 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision (keep deleted). Yes, you do need to provide a reason why you want this list undeleted. The list got a fair amount of discussion and pretty much everyone agreed that the criteria for inclusion in the list are too broad, hence it is unmaintainable. Titoxd 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). The discussion was robust and the community decision was clear. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted. We had this already (bottom half), and it was firmly kept deleted. No reason to overturn both an afd, and a previous VfU. Sometimes, articles get deleted. -Splash 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• What exactly are the "criteria for inclusion" apart from a question mark at the end of a song title? And again: What is the meaning of "unmaintainable"? Keeping on claiming that the list is/was "unmaintainable" does not answer this question. And if asked to give a reason for keeping the list, the most obvious one is that it cannot be found anywhere else—certainly not in a printed encyclopaedia, but probably nowhere in the Internet either. <KF> 02:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons for deletion are given in the AfD debate linked to above. That's why we run AfD debates and why DRV is not usually a place to repeat them. -Splash 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No reason(s) given there except that one word: "unmaintainable". Well, a classic case of point of no return it seems. Thank God there are Misplaced Pages mirrors all over the place. <KF> 03:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unmaintainable means that the list theoretically could reach an infinite length. If that is the case, then it means that it is just grouping things that don't belong together, which makes it an indiscriminate collection of facts. We like our lists short and sweet (as in List of spacecraft), not a hedgepodge of random stuff piled together. Titoxd 03:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the explanation. I've already given up, so rather than asking you to define "we" I'd like to say good night now. <KF> 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
          • We = Wikipedians, what we have decided through consensus and has been written down in policy as a result (relevant policy: WP:NOT). Titoxd 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Also Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. Uncle G 11:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Deleted VfU heard this previously. No new evidence. List still bad idea. Xoloz 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no process violations alleged, clear consensus to delte, no new issues raised here. DES 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. --Briangotts (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. It's not just that you think it should have been kept, right?-Splash 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep deleted). In addition to good reasons given by others, I strongly believe a proper reason should have to be given for the undeletion wish. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. encephalon 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Faced with such an overwhelming deletionist majority I don't see any way for me to continue arguing in favour of this list let alone wishing for its undeletion. If you want to know the truth, I didn't give a "proper reason" for undeletion at first because I thought it had to be either a mistake or a (rather pointless) practical joke that the list had been deleted. However, I did provide an argument later on, after I had realized that people were serious about this. My point is that nowhere on the Internet—except in Misplaced Pages mirror sites—and nowhere else (in printed form) will you find such a list. Its usefulness should be rated by (past, present, and future) users rather than a handful of current administrators. The question how valid the pseudo-democratic procedure is which almost all contributors to this debate are using as counterarguments does not belong here but should, as I see it, be discussed somewhere else.
  • I have retrieved this list as well as the other one ("...more than twenty times...") for my personal use. However, I was only able to do so in unwikified form. Would it be okay if I undeleted them, copied them onto my hard disc and immediately deleted them again? Or is there some other way I could achieve the same result? <KF> 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Technically, you can't undelete them, since you're an admin, but if people don't object, I'll userfy it to a page in your User space (like User:KF/List or similar) so you can use it there. I don't object to that. Titoxd 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • KF is an admin. -Splash 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Then that means I went over WP:LA really quickly. I apologize. Titoxd 05:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. <KF> 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

Ditto. Ordinary deletionism is bad enough, but disappointing all those contributors who have made a total of 514 (!) edits to this article is more than I can stomach. You can't be serious. I just can't believe that List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks is allowed to survive while this article has to go. Who gives a damn about Clear Channel? What is Clear Channel? <KF> 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision (Keep Deleted). the AFD is quite clear, the list is not useful, and the list itself violates WP:NOT. Listcruft. Titoxd 01:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Rossami (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Disappointment is not on the list of reasons for not deleting an article! I could spend hours writing a wonderful article about my wonderfully non-notable company and would have to live with it being deleted. If you don't like the other article then, instead of choosing the "drive Misplaced Pages to the standard of the worst article", nominate it for deletion. Article's stand or fall usually on their own merits, not on the (dis-)merits of other articles. There's no reason to suppose the nominator here could have swung the pretty-near unanimous deletion debate, and certainly no new information is presented, apart from wishing, and I don't think the encyclopedia is better with it restored. -Splash 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer (keep deleted). No defect of process or new information given. I voted against this at AfD as well, and still find it to be listcruft, and distressingly random in its criterion of interest. Xoloz 16:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision Valid AfD, with clear consensus. Quite in accord with WP:NOT and other relevant policy. No new issues presented here, and no process violations. Keep this deleted, and please do not try to recreate this. DES 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• relist. --Briangotts (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. -Splash 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer (keep deleted). No problem with the AfD is mentioned. Amusing list, but the "rough consensus" was crystal clear, and no fresh information has been presented that would suggest that a new AfD would have a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. encephalon 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. As for who Clear Channel is, they're the company that runs most of the radio stations in the United States. They've got a great deal of influence about what does or does not get airtime. --Carnildo 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep delete - hell no --Doc (?) 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Hell, some of those 514 edits are mine, and I can't say I'm terribly disappointed with the results (if it weren't for the article, I probably never would have counted the number of times Edward Tudor-Pole says "Who Killed Bambi", but that's hardly important). It was a vaguely interesting list to some, but not exactly encyclopedic. If anyone wants it temporarily undeleted for use outside of Misplaced Pages, I'd be open to that, however. -R. fiend 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid Afd. *drew 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ticalcs and Vdesign

Please note that there ARE communities (such as http://www.ticalc.org/) that deal with TI Calculators. I don't see why an article like that should be deleted.

Additionally, the aforementioned articles undertook a speedy deletion without having proper cause. "Not notable" is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion!

The only way that such a deletion can be allowed is if it is discussed first.

• Keep deleted Ticalcs, undelete and list Vdesign. Ticalcs, in the state it was deleted, stands no chance to be kept in AFD, and the content in the article is insufficient to the degree it almost fits CSD A1. Feel free to make a better article if you want, but it might be listed in AFD at any moment. As for Vdesign, it is in much better shape, so a run through AFD might be appropriate; that said, I cannot guarantee they won't be deleted. Titoxd 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn Speedy Deletion, list at AfD on both "Not notable" is, indeed, no reason for a speedy. I don't know the state of these, but since one was clearly a process-error, I say that both should have a shot at AfD, wherein each might come to the attention of many knowledgeable eyes. Xoloz 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete both and list on AFD if desired. Out-of-process speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• A sample from the start of Ticalcs is:

  Ticalcs is a budding TI Calculator Forum that is located at the URL (link)

  It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members. The most active are: Vladik, Pure, bfr, bcherry, anykey, and Simon.

  What Features Does It Have?

  Very Good Community

  Frequent updates

  Good Staff

• It hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hades if restored, so keep Ticalcs deleted and the nominator can simply write a proper article — the current version is no more than crufty advertising. The other one is little more than advertising, but I suppose it ought to be undelete Vdesign and immediately AfD, where that one doesn't have a lot of hope, either. You'll want to remove the smilies and parenthetical in-jokes if it's restored. In both cases I would strongly advise the nominator to just go and write decent articles rather than seek restoration of these two very poor ones. -Splash 09:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some mention of the highly procedural nature of VfU might be in order. Voters there are, or should be, interested only in the validity of the deletion process, not the content." — Splash 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. And I have said in several places that speedies are more about content than process since the content never got debated. I can't be bothered finding the diffs; you can believe me or not. Hence I provided the content, and you continue to debate process. Oops! -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, speedy deletion reviews must focus upon content, because that's how we determine whether the correct process was followed. Contrary to your claim above, my vote is based upon the article's content (which I thank you for posting in its entirety). Which speedy deletion criterion do you believe applies? If the answer is "none," what special circumstance warranted the application of WP:IAR? —Lifeisunfair 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I explained really quite clearly that my reason for keeping it deleted is that the restoration is a purely bureaucratic exercise and a thorough waste of time, rather than a necessarily valid speedy. The basis in CSD policy is thin, but there's easily an arguable case for A1 and also as G3 (WP:VAND says that spam is vandalism and I'm pretty easy on the fact that the article is spam: nearly every word is promotional.) I don't feel any need to resort to IAR: he who does so pretty much loses the debate by so doing. -Splash 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn both and lsit on AfD. Out of process deletion. Mind you, Ticalcs is IMO unlikley to pass AfD unless it is drastically rewritten during the process, and significant indications of notability are provided. Vdesign will probably need a rewrite to survive AfD also, but "non-notable" is just not an acceptable reason to speedy delete. DES 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete these improper speedies. List on AfD only if you feel that they should be listed. Listing on AfD following undeletion isn't mandatory; as always, it's up to anyone who looks at an article to decide if they want to list it there. That includes admins who undelete articles. Unfocused 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Under the current procedures, relisting is automatic unless a 3/4ths supermajority opts to overturn the decision, and opts not to relist. But in this case I am specifically opting for a relisting. DES 17:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If nothing else, it is a simple courtesy to list undeleted on articles, especially speedies, on AfD since at least one person thought they should be deleted, and that's all an AfD nomination takes. Not always necessary if the article was plainly good and mistakenly speedied, but in such rock-bottom cases as these it doens't seem in the least unreasonable. -Splash 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on Afd Every article that does not obviously fall under the speedy criteria deserves an AfD discussion before deletion. Not a snowball's chance type arguments are inappropriate for admins to make about articles whose deletion has not been openly discussed. *I* can't comment without seeing the article, and I don't think replicating choice excerpts here on DRV counts as seeing it (no edit history, etc.). --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I will make what comments I like on the article, thank you very much. And the excerpts aren't 'choice', they are the first however many lines of the article. Here's the whole thing, in case you think I'm trying to bias things by being an evil, deletionist, inappropriate admin — there is only this single edit in the history (a fact you don't need an inappropriate admin to check for yourself):

    What Is It?

    Ticalcs is a budding TI Calculator Forum that is located at the URL http://ticalcs.proboards41.com .

    It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members. The most active are: Vladik, Pure, bfr, bcherry, anykey, and Simon.

    What Features Does It Have?

    * Very Good Community

    * Frequent updates

    * Good Staff

    * Coding Support

    * Good Links

    * And Much More...

    So undeleting it is a purely bureaucratic exercise with zero value. Any article that survived AfD would bear no relation to this. -Splash 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please calm down, Splash. Charles criticized your argument. He did not refer to you as "inappropriate" or anything remotely resembling or implying "evil" or "deletionist."

Mmmhmm. I must be imagining the word "inappropriate" preceding the word "make" on my screen, then. -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this is a "purely bureaucratic exercise with zero value." More is at stake here than these specific articles, and I see a great deal of value in preventing the establishment of a dangerous precedent. —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• The comment wasn't directed just at what Splash said: Titoxd also made the snowball-type-remark stands no chance before. I don't like these sorts of arguments, even though I can sympathise with the process-minimisng reasoning that causes them, since they are remarks whose ground cannot be properly grasped by non-admins. The selectivity of the exceprting wasn't my principal beef with Splash's comment, more important was the lack of edit history. --- Charles Stewart 18:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: Thanks for the tip about Special:Undelete - I had thought the page showed only admin edits to the page. I retract my compliant about not seeing edit history --- Charles Stewart 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD. Obviously improper speedies, and should be discussed in AfD though I expect them to be voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete both and list at AfD. It appears as though Ticalcs has little chance of surviving an AfD debate, but I see absolutely no justification for ignoring all rules by sidestepping the correct process. To uphold this decision would encourage admins to unilaterally delete non-CSD-applicable articles without discussion. I can think of no better method of dissuading new contributors from continuing to participate in the project. —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued: those who think the sky may well fall if leave this deleted have expended many words telling us all so. They could hav written 20 stubs in that time. Why didn't anyone actaully write an article on this? Is it because they know it'd be a waste of their time? I couldn't really care less if these masterpieces are restored or not, because I am pretty sure they will be gone again five days later. Sorry, I must be the only one round here making such inappropriate comments. At least we move a step closer to the quality organ that is everything2.com in the meantime. -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Those of us who are arguing that the article should be undeleted share the same goal that motivates you: to create and maintain the best possible encyclopedia. Obviously, we have different opinions of how this can be accomplished, but that doesn't mean that we can't be respectful of one another's viewpoints. Do you honestly believe that the above mockery is somehow constructive? —Lifeisunfair 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and I'm sorry, mockery is not constructive. The mockery-free version is: I do not think that restoring either of these articles advances the Project a single bit, and in fact it retards the project, by offering the possibility that someone may come across the articles and, laughing in justifiable scorn, never return to Misplaced Pages. How can you rely on a reference source that is so without standards as to include the above article? So it'll be on AfD (though Unfocused appears to think that unnecessary), but that doesn't really cut it: we'd be better off without the article, and nearly everybody here appears to agree....at the same time as they say we should restore it. -Splash 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, actually, in the opinion of some administrators (myself included) Ticalcs fits within CSD A1. Undeleting it in its current state would result in a butchering of the article, maybe a few speedy requests in the AFD itself, and we would all get back to the same point, a deleted article. Yes, the article could be rewritten while in AFD, but that can happen now too, and I even went so far as to recommend that. Misplaced Pages does not have to be a bureaucracy. Titoxd 03:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that CSD A1 applies, and I also don't believe that it's a good idea to send the message that it's okay for admins to delete articles on the basis of non-notability, or that it's appropriate to treat a deletion review as a retroactive AfD debate (thereby excluding readers from the process). —Lifeisunfair 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is ok for admins to unilaterally go and delete articles on basis of non-notability, and I even got into Tony Sidaway's RFC to defend process. However, in this case, there's no precedent being set (or it shouldn't be read as a precedent anyway), my opinion is that Ticalcs was a valid speedy for not having enough context. Titoxd 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are admins who could possibly think that an article candidate that contains a URL and claims to noteworthiness (It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members, Very Good Community) falls under CSD A1 then we have a problem. --- Charles Stewart 14:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A1 deals with context, not notability. Noone is saying this could be a non-notable speedy, since A7 only applies to people. Moreover, A1 wants very little, but not no, context. This article says "X is a website about TI calculators, and it's one year old". That is certianly little context; whether it is little enough to speedy or not is a question. But it's ok to debate it without all these implications of impending doom if someone presses delete. -Splash 23:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Several comments. First, my 'votes' on this Review: relist both for out-of-process application of CSD.

  Second, there is a suggestion that deleted articles which are restored via WP:DRV should not automatically be relisted unless someone feels strongly that it should. In practice, there is probably little difference between this view and the opposite view, ie. that restored articles should be automatically listed on AFD unless there is a very strong reason not to. However, the difference is important enough to examine. I support the latter view. Remember firstly that articles can only be deleted by administrators; these are generally users who have a significant amount of experience with WP and a higher than average understanding of policy. If an administrator believes an article's shortcomings are severe enough to warrant deletion, that is usually (ie. far more often than not) prima facie evidence that something is at least quite wrong with the article. Admins do make mistakes however; in this particular case, the admin 1. selected an inappropriate method of deletion (SD instead of AFD) and 2. appears to have misunderstood CSD A7. DR addresses these mistakes. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, these mistakes are not egregious errors (for example, deleting a perfectly acceptable article like Canada), but rather technical/procedural mistakes made in deleting articles which are nevertheless very poor contributions. It therefore stands to reason that all articles which are restored be listed, unless it is clear that an obvious error was made. No harm comes from community examination of an article thought to be poor enough for deletion by at least one experienced editor (as long as the proper procedure is followed, per WP:DRV). There is also important for a second reason. The majority of inappropriate contributions to WP are caught soon after they are made, via NP patrol. That is to say, maintaining bare standards on WP is a front-loaded process: an inappropriate contribution that slips through has a good chance of remaining on WP even if it violated every cardinal articlespace policy in the book—something I believe all of us can agree is not good, regardless of almost any spot we usually find ourselves on in the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum. I am quite surprised that there is a possible suggestion that the articles in this review, Ticalcs and Vdesign, should not be listed fortwith—they clearly contravene cardinal mainspace policy.

  Third, we have the issue of clearly inappropriate pages which were nevertheless wrongly deleted. What to do when we are faced with articles of debatable merit that are wrongly speedied is clear: restore and have the debate. What to do when faced with virtually meritless contributions that were speedied under the wrong criterion, and which are virtually certain not to pass AFD, is less clear. One can be a stickler and send all inappropriate speedies to AFD. This is a simple and not unadmirable stance: it has the advantage of being the principled view. An alternate view is to not request an undelete if it is overwhelmingly clear that the outcomes will not differ. This is not uncommon; see for example The Sexy Sluts delete discussion on AN/I where Tony Sidaway remarks: "It was an obvious invalid speedy, but I don't feel moved to undelete it and I doubt whether any other admin will." There are other examples. Suffice to say, it is not unreasonable for Splash to take such a view, if in his opinion Ticalcs will simply not have a different outcome on AFD. If you disagree, and think the article should be AFD'd after undeletion, by all means go ahead and vote to list it. Or ask for a history undelete to look at the article yourself. But I disagree that it is "inappropriate for admins" to ask for a kd in such circumstances, as long as they explain themselves. The final decision on WP:DRV will depend on all comments.

  Fourth, there is a suggestion that "...it's a good idea to send the message that it's okay for admins to delete articles on the basis of non-notability..." Lifeisunfair, you probably meant to refer only to non-bio articles, but if not please note that articles are lawfully speedily deleted daily for non-notability, per WP:CSD A7. Regards encephalon 01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

October 29

Scandal Sheet!

This comic was deleted as being non-notable. I would disagree - the comic is well-known among comics fans, crossed-over with Something Positive, one of the most popular of all webcomics, and has managed to keep going for several years continuously. Also, while its forum may be, as the editor in question said, a 'ghost town', the livejournal community it's connected to isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth Munchkin (talk • contribs) 14:36, October 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted The AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scandal Sheet! appears valid. Nothing listed in this nomination that was not brought up during the AfD. --Allen3  15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the above. Valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted/Endorse Closer per Allen3. Xoloz 17:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• kd. I do not see any process problems. There is no new information that compels reconsideration. encephalon 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The information available now is the same as the information available at the time, and so there's no need to re-run the AfD debate. If someone provides some information that warrants a re-consideration, they are of course free to present it. I don't think the presence of the nominator here in the AfD would have made any difference, since the info offered isn't different, and the numbers involved in the AfD debate are sufficient. -Splash 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Seven of the nine votes in the AfD were to delete, which is a sufficient consensus. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any issues with the AfD, and no new information has been brought forward that would suggest that the outcome would now be different if the article were re-nominated. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (Keep deleted), no new information to overturn the AFD. Titoxd 01:56, 31 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) 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

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

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics

November 6

Southern Ivy League

Please review the deletion of Southern Ivy League. This is a widely used colloquial term in the South, and it was deleted by people with no regional connections. (In fact, it was deleted by someone who lives in Malaysia and has no idea what the educational system in the US South is like.) I am a Southern academic, and I hear this term often. It was acknowledged to be a colloquial term in the article, but it was deleted by people who just did not like the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandy (talk • contribs) 19:10, November 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The AfD for this article is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League.--Allen3  21:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse (keep deleted). Valid AfD. Whether the AfD nominator may or may not have heard the term due to geographical issues is immaterial. The primary issue raised by the AfD is the fact that the article provided no sources and was thus deemed unverifiable. Until reliable sources are provided to demonstrate the basic claims of the article the AfD should stand. --Allen3  21:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you for your thoughts, Vandy. The participants in the WP:AFD for this article, found here, came to a pretty convincing consensus—they were, in fact, nearly unanimously in favor of deletion (7D-1K), with your opinion being the sole dissenting one. I do not disbelieve you when you say you've heard the term for 20 years (I've heard "Southern Ivies" myself, though not for as long). However, please note that the participants did not decide on deletion based on whether or not they had heard the term; on the contrary, it was a recurrent theme in the debate that the claims made in the article were not sourced. Properly sourcing claims to reputable works and references is a particularly important tenet of Misplaced Pages editing; since the encyclopedia is a wiki that is open to editing by anyone with an internet connection, statements and claims made in articles should be always referenced, in accordance with the documents WP:V and WP:RS. It is the only way to ensure the relative reliability of the articles. As such I find myself persuaded that the AFD reached the correct conclusion, and endorse their decision. However, this being a wiki, you are always free to recreate the article, taking care to address the criticisms made in the AFD about the original (ie. please properly source the article if you are going to rewrite it; articles that are recreated without significant improvements are liable to immediate deletion without further debate). If you would like to obtain the text of the deleted article to help with rewriting, this can be easily arranged. Kind regards encephalon 21:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) As I noted in the debate, I have heard the term, but it is not used with consistency or frequency. I once heard a student at East Carolina University claim that institution was a "Southern Ivy." The term is puffery, and is not formalized in any way that I know of (or that was demonstrated in the article.) Xoloz 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Songs in triple meter

Please review the deletion of this article. People were inferring inclusion criteria from things written on the afd discussion page rather than from the article itself where it clearly stated that the only inclusion criterion for a song is that it be in either 3/4 time or 6/8 time. this criterion is not arbitrary. It is specific and simple. Many people voting did not understand time signatures and were voting because they were sick of 'listcruft' in general and musical 'listcruft' in particular. I applaud the effort to keep shoddy lists off of of wiki, but I believe my article got unfairly caught up in the middle of a debate of a much larger issue/problem. I believe that the frustration stemming from genuine 'listcruft' colored the thoughts and votes of wikipedians who are probably fairly objective people overall. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.96.24 (talk • contribs) 22:36, November 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: AfD discussion located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter --Allen3  22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse/Keep Deleted I voted for deletion on grounds of unmaintainability. 3/4 is a common time; "list of song with irregular time" is a list, and is fine. This list is similar to "list of love songs", so innumberable as to make any attempted list useless as hopelessly deficient and incomplete. Xoloz 04:05, 7 NovembeT 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted. Seems valid to me. the creator said that he made the page "in an effort to show that 3/4 and 6/8 has had a resurgence in popularity and commercial vitality". Well, that can be said in a sentence and mentioned in one of several articles (or more than one of several) and backed up with references without having to start listing every conceivable example of how it has had this resurgance. Another unmaintainable list, which would contain every minuet and waltz to say the least. -R. fiend 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted, the list could theoretically reach infinite length, which tells me that it isn't a very well defined list to begin with, and I don't see procedural problems with the deletion. Titoxd 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Golden Sun Password

Please review the deletion of this article. Votes in favor of keeping the article were pouring in. Mailer Diablo asserted that these votes were by sock puppets. This is not so. The following two individuals are not sock puppets. They have only visited this article because this is the only article in Misplaced Pages which is of interest to them.

Keep Misplaced Pages's purpose is to give information right? Well, this article gives information for the Gameboy Advance game, Golden Sun. It will help new players and/or other people who play this game understand Golden Sun's password system. It also helps the player as if you don't have the original Golden Sun, you don't have a password to use. People who just bought this game (part 2) can simply choose a password from the list to use. Isaac

and

• Keep wikipedia is to inform people. This article will serve people to understand everything they need for Golden Sun and it's password system. Those who say it doesn't are only willing to troll. Mamsaac

There would be many more votes if there was an article-discussion location for the votes. Also each person contributing passwords was a keep vote.

User: CobraGT 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision, keep deleted. The AFD was valid, the undeletion request does not provide any significant new information to the debate, the page itself goes against Misplaced Pages policy, and the closer has the privilege to discount voters with few edits in the project (as sockpuppets) or who remained anonymous. There already is an article for the game, so what more do you want? Misplaced Pages isn't Everything2. Titoxd 05:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid Afd; the "votes" referred to in the nomination above are both unsigned (or, perhaps, defectively signed), so they must be considered null and void. The rest were discounted within closer's discretion. The article is also plainly in violation of policy, a consideration the closer likely weighed in finding consensus. Xoloz 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Xoloz. *drew 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• alsoAnother independent keep vote is If You Read Only One Thing, Make This It GameFAQs says its not the place for this, and frankly the purpose of Misplaced Pages may not be to store every little thing for every little game, it is meant to compile the knowledge of it's user in a way that makes it conveniant. I see no problem in allowing this page to continue, and people that have a bone to pick with GameFAQs shouldn't take it out on this rather nice idea.
  • It is definitely of importance that these are not socket puppets.(i) There are many who benefit from an article on the Golden Sun Password (ii) The mini-administrator lacks sufficient fluency with nuances of language to realize that these are all independent personalities (iii) The mini-administrator is of the belief that his cleverness gives him the power of ascertaining fact.CobraGT

November 4

Sonic: Time Attacked

The article went to the deletion list because the game was not official. There's no rule against articles about fan made games or another fan made material, as long as it's notable enough. The page was deleted with only 3 votes. Sonic: Time Attacked is considered by many the most notable fan game ever created. Doing the Google Test with it, only searching on english websites with the game name on quotes, gave about 579 results --Mark the Echidna 18:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn. This game is of remarkable popularity among Sonic fans. The article itself is not illegal and does not infringe any copyright laws. It really should be undeleted. --200.150.31.74 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) — the article was created in January, has a good few edits and is beyond a stub. It might be reasonably notable. Although the Afd delete was valid, very few people were interested in it: sometimes five days is too short. --Gareth Hughes 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• The Afd debate was here. It got 2 delete votes and 1 keep vote, noted as an aeditors first edit, whcih the closer might reasonably have discounted. The reasons specifed for deletion were "...fangame, not official" and "software equivalent of fanfic". The qyuestion of notability was not rasied, but might well have been. The article seems to have been fairly detailed and was not at all a stub -- i didn't check the sources. The AfD was valid, but very slim. OTOH no new reason has been provided above. I am torn on this one, but finally come down as overturn deletion and relist on AfD to allow for a broader consensus one way or the other. If this is done, i hope and trust that the clsoer will be strict about discounting possible sockpuppets and meatpuppets. DES 18:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Second. I really WOULD like to just have it undeleted and leave it at that, but the fact it's a fan-created project leads to ambiguous notability. Redoing the AfD, perhaps with a little more fanfare, would help some. Still, I'd like to see the article undelted, if only because that would mean Sonic Robo Blast 2 would be next in line, and I'd REALLY not like to see that deleted. --Shadow Hog 01:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete). In addition to the fact that the AfD discussion had very few participants, the sole justification provided by the two "delete" voters (the fact that the game is fan-created) is entirely invalid. The subject's notability and the condition of the article (which evidently was fairly solid) were not addressed, so these votes should not have carried any weight. —Lifeisunfair 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fan fiction is generally considers alomst automatically non-notable, and it takes a large showing for any fanfiction work to survive AfD. Similar issues exixt in this case, and the extra showing of clear notability was not IMO made in the article as it stood. DES 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This game isn't comparable to fan-written stories (which almost never reach a high level of fame). A video game needn't be commercial to be notable, and the one distinction between this game and a 100% original work is the fact that it's based upon pre-existing characters (which only increases the likelihood of popularity). If this particular video game is non-notable (and I have no opinion on the matter), that's a valid reason to advocate its deletion. This issue, however, should be raised at AfD. The existing discussion contains no such justification. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, fan-created games are by nature nn. User:Zoe| 05:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Fuckin' Counterstrike. Who cares about it? Phil Sandifer 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Or maybe MarioWeen, a fangame that was actually featured on G4...
• Keep deleted, no real problem with the process aside from it being briefly discussed, and there are no guarantees that there's going to be more participation in a second AFD. Titoxd 05:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, the low-participation vote suggests that this is not a very reflective sample. No reason it shouldn't get another chance. Obviously the vote will now be a bit more publicized and should stand for awhile. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So an AfD should keep getting relisted until it reaches the results you want? User:Zoe| 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you'll be weighing in on College of Wooster Greeks below? Phil Sandifer 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but an AfD result (of any kind) should not be viewed as sacrosanct. Plenty of articles have been listed several times, with consensus for deletion finally established after several failed attempts. Is it your position that this should permanently bar the inclusion of such an article? I presume that it is, given the fact that you recently made the unilateral decision (without prior notice or discussion) to repeatedly delete an article that shared its name and theme — but not its text — with a different article that had been deleted several months earlier (after which point the subject attained clear notability). —Lifeisunfair 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but it should get relisted if there is substantial reason to believe that the results obtained were not or are no longer reflective of the views of the community (i.e., that the process failed). In this case, our bases for believing this are the small turnout of the vote and the new arguments presented by the nominator. The article was deleted because it was a fangame; the nominator here has now explained why, as such, it is encyclopedic. A new vote informed by these important arguments may provide a different result. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. Original AFD had to little participation to accurately determine concensus. The fact several people are asking for undeletion here shows this. Relisting and informing all original voters + the ones in this review is a good idea. A 2 delete, 1 keep can hardly be called binding. - Mgm| 14:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Three votes is hardly enough to form a broad consensus, but there is a preexisting broad consensus that fan-generated works are generally non-notable. There does not appear to be any substantiation that this is "the most notable fan game ever created" besides an absurdly low google count. Gamaliel 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Meh. undelete and relist. 3 votes isn't much of a consensus, no matter how the voting went. Give the proponents a chance to make their case that this is one of the few examples of a notable fan game. If they can't make such a case, I and many others I'm sure will vote to delete it this time. -R. fiend 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist per C. Parham and R. fiend. In some cases, I do think sparse participation can raise due process concerns. As an aside, I am impressed that the keep voter managed to sign the vote and create a userpage (although, of course, discounting the vote was within discretion.) Xoloz 07:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Bad reason for deletion, excellent article. --Tony Sidaway 07:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/Relist (Undelete). Looks like the correct call on Drini's part but now new and good reasons which establish notability which were not presented at the AFD have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ammar ibn Yasir

Very notable Sahaba, should not have been deleted in the first place. Ill work on it. --Striver 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Copyright violation — This was deleted as a copyright violation. You copied the article from http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Spa/7220/ammar.html and http://al-islam.org/restatement/71.htm. The article was deleted for this and no other reason. --Gareth Hughes 13:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copyvio. Feel free to write a new article in its place though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nayla bint Farasa

I want to elaborate on her, i need her article to be able to do that. --Striver 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (keep deleted) — although she is relatively notable, the article was deleted (afd) because it consisted of one sentence. Her role should be elaborated within the article of Uthman, and, if there is enough material, split off into a separate article. --Gareth Hughes 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• If Striver wants to work on it and make something more informative, I suggest that we undelete and userfy to his userspace where he can expand it at his leisure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why bother, if it is one sentence? Why not just quote it here? --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There were some stub templates, headings and external links which make that difficult. I have made a temporary undeletion and moved the article to his userspace. I think it is fairly common practise to make such undeletes for moves to userspace. It is now at User:Striver/Nayla bint Farasa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Valid AfD. While I suspect that this person might have some importance within Islam, the deleted article contained no information useful to someone not familiar with the faith explaining why she is considered notable. A new article that contains appropriate context information would be useful. --Allen3  15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sjakkale's action. If this gets expanded, the entire history will be retained, including whatever was done prior to deletion. - Mgm| 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

November 3

Matthew stecker

Moved to user page, when clearly expressed an assertion of significance. Should go through AFD if there is objection.

• Overturn speedy/list at AfD with a sigh. Pretty clear vanity, but there is the assertion of a "pivotal role", and enough information about the companies cited to determine veracity of claims made. If Mr. Stecker wants to make a case at AfD, let the case be made, though I personally presume it will fail. Xoloz 05:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep userfied - Why clog up AfD with a clear case of self-written biovanity? FCYTravis 15:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: anyone who userfies a page should always leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why. This sort of thing shouldn't need to be discussed at deletion review. As for the merits of the speedy, I endorse the speedy as a proper application of A7. I see no assertion of notability here. However, a message on the talk page saying, "this was already speedied once, we're going to try Afd now" should be (I hope) enough to keep it from being speedied again. Friday (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• If this was a move to userspace rather than a speedy, then it doesn't belong here. if anyone disagrees with the move they should restore it to article space. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was a move to userspace... I initially speedied it, then realized it was a likely case of autobiography, so I restored it and userfied it. FCYTravis 19:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnyard (2006 film)

Deleted under CSD G4, which reads "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy." This article survived AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barnyard (2006 film), and thus cannot fall under G4, regardless of speedies BEFORE the AFD.

• Overturn. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've fixed this as follows: I deleted the protected page (thus unprotecting it), I wrote a decent stub in place of the trashy garbage that AfD thought was good material, and have restored all the previous revisions, since all the speedies came after the AfD. Frankly, I don't know what AfD was thinking (and it strikes me that the closer possibly didn't look at the article when no-consensusing a two-thirds debate), and the speedies would have been valid A1 if not for the AfD. Anyway, we've now got a decent enough stub, and I will look 'unfavourably' upon the editor who reverts my stub (anons with an edit summary problem included). -Splash 16:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Someone can take it to AfD on crystal ball grounds if they like. The IMDb page hasn't been updated in a year. -Splash 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is. While people who voted to keep the original crap need to have their heads checked, Splash's new stub should be pretty uncontroversial. If anyone really cares, they can feel free to AfD it again (the original result was borderline, I would have closed as delete), but it would probably just waste all our time. -R. fiend 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is a page for this already at Barnyard (film) (the proper title) - the (...2006 film)" was part of a spate of additions of movies listed as "...2006 film)". Part of Splash's contents should be merged with the Barnyard (film), and Barnyard (2006 film) should at least be redirected, if not re-deleted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Right. I will merge them. But there are no grounds whatsoever for deleting the resultant redirect! If nothing else it would be an obvious violation of the GFDL, as usual, unless someone copies histories onto talk pages. -Splash 21:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Turn over Splash and spank him. If he continues to perform in this manner, producing good articles and cleaning up messes with his clear decisive action, our whole carefully contructed bureacratic machine will collapse. Enough of this silly common sense stuff!
  brenneman 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and keep redirect, not that the redirect will get use but only because redirects are cheap per Jeffrey and Splash. Marskell 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one article, don't care which. It doesn't seem like "crystal ball" material since it's a major studio release that has a trailer already and must be pretty far along. It seems to me that if they somehow decide not to release it at this point it should still have an article just to document what happened. Note that it does look (judging by the trailer) like complete and total poo, but that's not a deletion criterion either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly McGee

Deleted under CSD A7, which reads, in full ""An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion of vanity articles."(emphasis mine) The entry in the deletion log reads "content was: 'Adam Levine's ex-girlfriend. She was in Maroon 5's This Love video. She dated Adam from early 2003 to late 2004. she is a former m" This appears to be an assertion of notability.

• Overturn and List on AFD Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC). I am trying not to bite the new admin, but can someone review the deletion log, please?
  • Please don't bite the person not biting the new admin. Properly deleted under g4 (though deletion under a7 would be impropper.)Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelly McGee. -Splash 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it alone per Splash. Friday (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• (After 2 edit conflicts) I was going to vote to overturn and relist, as per the nom, but since there was a previous AfD, Overturn and delete per G4. DES 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: as Splash noted, a valid CSD G4. Note that the deleting admin did cite CSD G4, but also seems to have misunderstood CSD A7. --- Charles Stewart 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an admin call. encephalon 21:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the primary reason was G4. Should not have done A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• The original article was probably never a deletion candidate--at most it should have been merged to her boyfriend's article or (perhaps) to the more famous Robbie Williams with whom she was associated. AfD screws up occasionally, and obviously did so here. Undelete all versions and revert to the version which was AfD'd. Needs references, of which there are many available including interviews with her boyfriend, articles about the rock video in which she made an appearance, etc. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, 'Why, he stumped his toe.'" --Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously. -R. fiend 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Riot Siren

Orig. AFD CSD A7, which this was closed under reads, in full "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion of vanity articles."(emphasis mine) A band is not a person.

• Relist or Overturn and Delete (not speedy) per consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is no means to speedy an article on a band, unless it's A1, or something, which this wasn't. It was a pretty terrible article, however, as the AfD demonstrates. I think the best way to repair the process is to undelete and resume the listing: it had only been up for a few hours and has only been down for a few hours. Unless anyone objects quickly, I think I will probably go ahead and do so, since this will minimise the out-of-processness. -Splash 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy and relist on AfD. I agree with Splash's view above. DES 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that the speedy wasn't properly justified by A7. However, consensus is already clear, so undeleting it seems downright silly. Also, the article is completely unverifiable. Why not just change the closure justification to "deleted via Afd" and leave it deleted? There will be no serious discussion of keeping this. Friday (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I said "unless", and Friday has offered an objection, but I decided to do this anyway. We frequently get slam-dunk straight-up deletes on AfD and there is no harm in letting them run for their time. Someone can close this on the dot of 5 days. It isn't really right to allow a debate to be left closed on the grounds of an improper speedy, particularly when the AfD nominator tacitly agrees that it isn't a speedy. -Splash 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• As long as this is deleted, I don't much care how. But really, this is such an obvious delete that common sense dictates it's speediable. A band that has yet to even practice? Hell, I'd speedy it as nonsense, as a band that hasn't practiced is not a band, but 4 guys who own instruments and have chosen a common name with which to refer to themselves. This also brings up a point, if 2 people are listed under the same puerile vanity article ("Jim and Joey Ploober are 2 awesome kids from Philly. They're brothers. They rock") is it not a valid A7 because it is not about a real person but about two real people? And is an article stating "Doctor Awesome and his Tadpoles of Descrepency is a band consisting of Mike, Jim, Sal, Arnold and Gooch. They haven't learned to play instruments yet, but they will, and they'll record the best music ever" not a speedy, but "Ernie Clapps is a singer/songwriter trying to make it big" is because the former is a band and the latter is a solo artist? I think we have to rely on common sense a bit more, and less on technicalities. -R. fiend 17:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this. I seldom agree with R. fiend on issues regarding deletion, but the argument that a band that hasn't even practiced is not actually a band is a truism. It's nonsense, just as a group claiming to be a corporation that hasn't actually incorporated would be nonsense as well. This isn't a valid A7, but it is nonsense, so speedy the thing already. Unfocused 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• What R. fiend said. Splitting an article about 2 awesome kids into 2 articles about one kid each would be a totally legitimate edit. Speedy deleting both of those 2 new articles would be totally legit also. But why jump through silly hoops just to be in compliance with the letter of the rules? Let's stop fetishizing process over product, and work on an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Splitting an article about 2 awesome kids into 2 articles about one kid each would be a totally legitimate edit. Speedy deleting both of those 2 new articles would be totally legit also. LoL. You certainly get points for ingenuity, Friday. encephalon 20:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess. :) I was trying to point out the utter absurdity of trying to go strictly by "the letter of the law" when such loopholes exist. I haven't been going out of my way to point this out, but many, many things could be speedy deleted "legitimately" by a doing a bit of creative editing first. I suppose there are those who would be appalled at such an idea, though, so I'm going to slink back into hiding now and pretend I never mentioned this. :) Friday (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• No need to do any slinking, Friday. :) You are very perceptive. The CSD were constructed to be narrowly applied, out of concern that a single pair of eyes cannot be trusted to determine an article's worth infallibly, every time. But to construct a narrowly defined set of criteria, it had to be, by necessity, 'artifical.' It works with good faith admins, and it can work better with helpings of common sense, but the surface efficiency of the process sometimes leads us to forget that the construct is not 'natural'; the issues you point out reveal its artificial nature. At the most fundamental level, what we're all trying to do is to maintain some standards for the encyclopedia. An article that is in accord with the fundamental standards (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Copyrights, WP:NOT) will not be lawfully deletable. An article that can cross over to speedy territory merely with a single edit is probably actually very poor. encephalon 21:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, if we could get every admin on the project to agree to use "tag & bag" on the speedies, so at least we know there were two sets of eyes looking at an article and that the article sat in the "visible to regular users but is about to be speedy deleted" category for a short little while, I think you'd find broad support of expanding the CSDs. Otherwise, just be as thoughtful and considerate of new users and honest contributors as you can, use inoffensive comments and edit summaries (NO "burn with fire", "nuke from orbit", "--cruft", et. al.), and accept disagreements gracefully, and no one important will ever be upset with you. (Unless of course you get overly involved with the politics of user blocking and free speech.) Unfocused 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Enough's enough. I was reluctant to do this at first because the article was brought here, but I've deleted it now. Not per a CSD, though, although several people offered criteria they believed were appropriate. I've simply deleted it per the Afd. 5 days is a typical case, not a requirement. Consensus was, shall we say, abundantly clear. However, if someone disagrees, please just go ahead and undelete it and let the Afd continue rather than trying to decide what to do here. Friday (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Modojo

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Modojo and DelLog
Modojo.com may not be as popular as your standards require, however, the forum community is quite large and has been around longer than modojo.com. The community has 2.6 million posts and 7300 members. More information can be found here: http://www.big-b oards.com/board/285/ plucas 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Relist unless given some compelling story. AfD was, umm, odd? Is there something to the history I'm not seeing, and how did T's deletion come about? - brenneman 05:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like somebody nominated it for AfD, and before (or shortly after) its listing was finished, it was A1 speedied. No bad-faith on Tox's part, obviously, just a time thing. AfD underway means contested speedy, which results in Undelete (possibly speedily) to let process run. Xoloz 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, that is exactly what happened. I saw the speedy tag, thought it was either patent nonsense or a newbie test (also speediable), so I sent it the way of the phonograph. The article was nowhere close to the state it is now. Titoxd 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• This discussion can now be closed. The only deletion to this article was a speedy-deletion as patent nonsense - a speedy-deletion which is not being contested. The current version of the article is not the same content and does not qualify for the "repost" speedy criterion. As Xoloz notes, a regular AFD on the new version has now been initiated and should be allowed to continue. Rossami (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Can someone help me understand what is going on with the undeletion log. It looks to me like the original speedy was applied too fast (From WP:CSD: Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it.): the article received 14 edits in 12 minutes, then the page was speedied 4 minutes later. But then there is another entry in the log is 30 mins later, whose effect I cannot fathom. --- Charles Stewart 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There was only one deletion...at 0354UTC 3 November 2005. -Splash 18:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So what was JJay's edit: adding a template to get it speedied? Is there a page that explains Special:Undelete? --- Charles Stewart 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. Anything that appears under 'Page history' is the editing history that would appear under the history tab if restored. Only those actions that appear in the 'Deletion log' section are to do with actual deletion/restoration by admins. -Splash 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, so JJay was overenthusiastic in adding the CSD notice. I'll pop a note on his/her talk page. Thanks for the explanation. --- Charles Stewart 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Tar and feather the admin that speedied it. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoxd (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Golgothian Sylex

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Golgothian Sylex
JIP deleted this article despite two "keep" votes and two "delete" votes. Both delete votes were from users that were obviously ignorant of and biased against Magic: The Gathering storylines, however, he ignored my vote because I'm interested in Magic. Huh? --Slobad 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Looks like a valid AfD. I count it was 3-to-1 to delete. Andrew Levine, Saberwyn, and Proto on the delete side, one valid user (Slobad) and a non-existant user (Vestdan) on the keep side. Since Vestdan doesn't exist, its vote isn't counted, leaving it 3-to-1. Unless I'm really missing something here, this looks like a simple clear-cut case without much irregularity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as Starblind explained so well. Besides, it's a magic card. -R. fiend 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete The article isn't about the card. --Slobad 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse the closer's decision (keep deleted). Slobad made his/her case during the initial discussion and failed to persuade the community. It does not appear to me that the closing admin ignored Slobad's opinion, only that he correctly ignored the sockpuppet. I see no process problems here. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure (Keep Deleted) per Rossami. Xoloz 06:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse, although I wouldn't oppose a history-only undeletion if Slobad desires to merge this content into a larger article on the MTG storyline that this relates to. android79 17:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• What android said. encephalon 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. We should not even be considering articles like this for deletion. Again, AfD got it wrong, as occasionally happens. At most merge with Magic: The Gathering or some other suitable article. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Here's the text of the article:

The Golgothian Sylex is an artifact from Magic: The Gathering. It is described as a large bowl of a copper-like metal, and there are curious glyphs on it, which roughly translate as "Use to wipe the world clean, to topple the empires, to start again".

During the war between Urza and Mishra, the Sylex was activated by Urza in the final battle on the island of Argoth. The resultant devastation not only destroyed the island and decimated the nearby continent of Terisiare, but altered the climate of Dominaria, sending the world into an ice age.

After this event, it was unknown whether the Sylex was destroyed after its use. Centuries later, during the Acclaim/Armada Comic series Wayfarer, the planeswalker Ravidel threatened to create a second blast of devastation over Corondor with the newly recovered Sylex. His plan however, was stopped by a young planeswalker named Jared Carthalion after using a two-spell combination.

The card itself, from the Antiquities expansion, is almost useless in the modern game. It is one of the cards known as "expansion hosers" that, when used, would remove all cards from it's expansion set from the game. Golgothian Sylex would only work on cards that came directly from the Antiquities expansion, and not reprints from other sets.

It could be merged with Terisiare or Urza. --Slobad 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

David Wong

This article should be undeleted because it is about a man was wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. Eventually he was exonerated. Genb2004 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and speedies. Actually, the second, copyvio, speedy was probably a hasty A8 since I don't think it comes from a commercial website. But now that it's down, we really shouldn't knowingly restore copyright infringing text to satisfy internal processes. It appears to be from , by the way. I wonder if such a source may be PD, although absent a release to that effect, it isn't. The third deletion was of an article reading only:

  "David Wong was wrongly convicted of a crime that he did not commit. Eventually he was exonerated and finally freed."

• which is fine for an nn-bio as it stands (it certainly doesn't assert that anything in the text is notable). The original debate was horribly puppeteered for reasons I can't fathom: the debate was an overwhelming delete, and clearly people are not persuaded by the claim of meeting WP:MUSIC. There is no new information offered here, the nominator would not have changed the debate and I do not think the encyclopedia is better with the article restored. -Splash 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hang on, I'm a little bit confused. There are two seperate David Wongs here. The first one, correctly deleted by AfD was just some random lawyer who plays the piano and, according to AfD has a serious case of egoism (there are some great quotes in the debate). On the other hand, the copyvio attempt, whilst a copyvio, was about someone completely seperate and reading the source (see link above), an original article on him should certianly be allowed to be written. The nn-bio was still ok, though, in a prima facie sense. So I think endorse closure, keep deleted, and unprotect is what we should be doing, and we can just set aside the specific request in this nomination. -Splash 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, and unprotect' per Splash's excellent work. Xoloz 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It sounds to me from Splash's summary that neither version of the article would merit CSD A7, as per Hall Monitor's comment on Special:Undelete/David_Wong. From Splash's description only CSD G4 or A8 might apply. --- Charles Stewart 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (edited after Charles Stewart 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I just speedy deleted David Wong (pianist), as, apparently, a recreation of one version of this article. User:Zoe| 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse. The first deletion was an in-process VfD. The second was a clear copyvio speedy: the article reads like a copy-and-paste of a newspaper article. The third was a clear non-notable-bio speedy: people are convicted and exonerated all the time. --Carnildo 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Splash's argument. *drew 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

November 2

New World (comic)

The Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/New_World_(comic) was closed without contacting anyone from the actual comic being depicted, Robert Maupin, the colorist or Scott Clements, the artist. The information they gave generally lacked in information and may of influenced others to delete it. The webcomic met the requirements to be listed on wikipedia set down by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Webcomics. The Talk:New_World_(comic) holds more information then they found. I feel that at the very least they should of contacted either me or the artist about the deletion. At the very least I would like to get a copy of the history changes so that I might keep the information on personal backup.

• Keep deleted. There is absolutely no reason why the creators of a comic need to be consulted when discussing the deletion of an article. -R. fiend 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Which of the proposed notability criteria does the comic meet? Phil Sandifer 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Misplaced Pages has absolutely no obligation to contact you. You should have come to Misplaced Pages, and I'm glad you now have. If you can offer the kind of information Snowspinner asks for, and that information was not in the previous article, and that information does meet the (still heavily debated) WP:COMIC suggestions, I imagine the debate can be re-run. The information on the talk page is barely coherent, however and really don't offer any trace of notability, WP:COMIC or no. 5000 hits per year is tiny. If new information is not forthcoming, endorse closure and keep deleted. -Splash 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising for the guideline, I mean. WP:COMIC is dead, long live WP:WEB. This forked proposed guideline has been, um, spooned? Calling all brave souls to come and weigh in to this exciting discussion. So that we can have less XfD/DR/RfD/Xyz over this sort of thing. - brenneman 01:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) - Valid Afd. The article was properly tagged for the entire length of the AfD discussion, allowing all interested parties to learn about the AfD. As for WP:COMIC, there is a reason why it has been changed into a redirect to WP:WEB. --Allen3  01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment An easy option would be to re-write this from scratch in a manner substantially different from the original. This wouldn't need to go to AfD, although I'm sure that someone would put it there regardless, so do try to make something that will survive. If your tastes ran to that sort of thing, you could even request a history only undeletion. Nice to have an admin run an "identical" checker over it to avoid a G4 (?) speedy, though. - brenneman 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Or even better, find some larger "chunk" that will clearly survive AfD and incorporate this material in there. I don't know, the production company, the artist collective, something. If there is any information there at all, it will only be served by being presented in a meaningful way, so go and write something. - brenneman 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Valid AfD with no keep votes at all, including the usually webcomic-inclusionist Snowspinner. The notion that WP has some obligation to notify a webcomic's staff when it gets deleted is downright silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if you look at my webcomics votes, they're a majority delete, I believe. [[User:
  • Okay I will accept this ruling fr now, I will got back and rewrite it fully then resubmit the article and see how that goes, we meat the minimum 100 comics, I think it has 150 or so, not including the fillers, and the comic has been around for several years. I would like to request a temporary history undeletion, so I can get the informatiuon that was already there. Robert Maupin 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks

The afd was clsoed early, apparently on the sole grounds that there had been a prior Afd with a no-consensus result. Overturn the closure and reopen the AfD listing. DES 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent example, made the more excellent by Snowspinner's closure remarks, of why the expansion of scope from VfU to DRV was the right thing to do. There is no reason to close the AfD early (though Snowspinner has a particular penchant for so doing), so overturn the closure, and relist. I'm tempted to do so speedily, since the closure is very obviously out-of-process. As ever, one should engage in a debate one disagrees with rather than tell those involved to shut up, which an early closure in this manner certainly does. -Splash 00:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open the existing AFD listing. The prior discussion was closed as a "no consensus" decision on 3 Oct 05. The prior discussion was certainly ambiguous enough to justify relisting after a reasonable time for edits and improvements. Few edits have been made in the month since the first decision was closed. The second decision was well on it's way to being a second "no consensus" decision when Snowspinner pre-emptively closed the discussion. His/her explanation for the early close is at variance with our traditional practice and was, in my opinion, out of order. As a community, we considered and rejected limits on renominations of articles. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "No consensus" means "Keep." And again - we cannot reasonably have limits on considering undeletion based on content while allowing endless nominations for deletion based on content. Phil Sandifer 01:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "No consensus" means there was no agreement on what to do. It means we do nothing. -Splash 01:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Keeping an article is not an action. No consensus means we do not delete. Articles that are not deleted are kept. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No consensus means no consensus. It means no agreement. Not all articles that are not-deleted are kept outright: many are merged, redirected, transwikied, userfied, categorified etc etc. I'm not among the group who refuses to see shades of grey. I thought it was these shades of grey that was one of the reasons for deferring so heavily to admin judgement in closing AfDs. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • In the absence of agreement to do anything unusual to an article - delete, merge, or otherwise - articles are kept. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Bullshit. -R. fiend 02:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Civil - Easy there mate. - brenneman 02:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • OK then - in the absence of a consensus to do something to an article, what do we do to it? Phil Sandifer 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • There are numerous options, including merging and/or redirecting. I know the Tony Sidaway school of thought on AfD states that unless about 90% of all voters agree on an exact course, the only thing that can possibly happen is the article remains untouched forever. Thats why we see various AfDs with zero keep votes kept as is because there is "no consensus" to do anything else. Most people see that as BS, however. -R. fiend 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • I am not sure what issues you have with Tony, but merging and redirecting are still doing "something" to an article. Absent any of those, articles are kept - they are not "no consensused" Phil Sandifer 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • We simply take no action since none was mandated by the debate. We call that "no consensus" because we acknowledge that there was no agreement. No agreement that it should be kept, nor deleted, nor merged nor anything. We don't pretend that a lack of agreement to do anything should be reported as a firm agreement to keep. Yes, of course the article will stand, but saying that the outcome of the debate was to keep, when the outcome of the debate was that people didn't reach agreement requires a considerable lack of subtlety. To later cite such a debate as saying "keep" when it said "we don't know" requires plain misunderstanding. -Splash 02:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • That's absurd - the default position is that we accept an editor's contributions. Only in extraordinary circumstances do we delete, remove, or otherwise eliminate someone's contributions. To say otherwise is to create the absurd notion that an article needs some special permission to exist. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Hmmm? Who mentioned deleting? I said do nothing. Anyone can redirect or merge without seeking permission, and there is no extraordinary circumstance required to do so. All I said was that "we don't agree" isn't "we think it should be kept". I don't know where you pulled deletion from. -Splash 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • And on R. fiend's point, he is of course correct that most of the debates without a single keep that get kept should have had something else done because working out that people didn't think it should stay isn't at all hard. We take the route that will likely satisfy a consensus of participators: if there is no such route available, and I agree that sometimes there isn't, then it's a no consensus as I described above. Of course, any editor remains free to reverse such an action at will. -Splash 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. The first AfD was borderline anyway (3 deletes, a keep and a merge). The second was less close, but closed early (and most of those votes seemed to rely more on the questionable keep from vote #1, rather than the merits of the article, which is generally a poor way of doing things). Give it a real vote this time, and judge it on its merits, rather than the ambiguous result of a previous AfD. -R. fiend 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So we're making endless reconsiderations of content on AfD, but not here on Deletion Review? That doesn't seem wrong to you? Phil Sandifer 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep closed - if deletion review is not about content, then AfD should not be abused to repeatedly redo deletion debates until people get the answer they want. You can't have this one both ways - either content-based reconsiderations are allowed or they're not. The answer, picked over serious objection, was "not." Phil Sandifer 01:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm confused. I thought AfD was to discuss content. I must have been mistaken. And it's very tiresome to suggest that DRV has nothing at all to do with content and such a statement really does require you to refuse to read the blurb properly. It says in simple language that, if you have new information, you should by all means offer it, and it can then be taken to AfD...where content is reviewed properly. I suppose DRV deals with a prima facie case of new-information-or-not and then passes the job onto AfD if it finds such a case. I don't see what's wrong with that. DRV also deals with the correctness of the close: particularly where there is no new information available and so that route is closed. In this case, your reasoning for the closure was obviously wrong, so it should be fixed. It's an unfortunate fact that many requests that come here are RandomTeenageBand thinks they're famous, can't come up with any new information why they are, and all that's left to examine is whether someone misread the debate. That doesn't sound like heresy to me. -Splash 01:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that content relisting requires "substantial new information." What new information was added to the new AfD? If none, it remains a grotesque imbalance whereby keeps can be redone until they get deleted, but deletes can't be undone. Phil Sandifer 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There wasn't much new information in the new AfD, and I'll speculate that DRV would have chosen to not to overturn a properly closed AfD (such as the first). By forcing the issue, you've managed to give a good reason to run the debate in full. However, I see little wrong with regularly holding the whole encyclopedia up to scrutiny. We need more scrutiny, not less. Of course deletes can be undone, at which point they usually return to AfD: which is where the previous no consensus ended up. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No - deletes can't be undone. The undeletion policy was EXPLICITLY changed to forclose undoing deletions without evidence of "new information." A specific decision was made to make undeleting articles harder. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist This clearly isn't about content. It's about an out-of process close by an admin who took part in the debate. Who says we can't have it both ways, anyhew? Process is about making tools that help to streamline behavior. We mostly talk about validity of the XfD because that's usually the substatative issue. However, as per the header up above, when our monkey brains tell us that there is some merit to discussing content, we do. It's neither a foolish conformity nor wild chaos. - brenneman 01:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep closed Can't see the point of listing perfectly good articles on AfD. We're running an encyclopedia, not an aunt sally stall. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but the point of the listing would seem to be what the nominator stated in the AfD. Clearly, Purplefeltangel thought it wasn't a perfectly good article. She is entitled to make her case, as those who agree with her. You are not in a position to tell them to shut up because you fear what they are saying. -Splash 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• You are joking about it being perfectly good, right? Did you read this mess? It's all unsourced POV, indeed the purpose of this article is only to present original research. Remove the unverifiable stuff, and you've got nothing left. Friday (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is unverifiable - the bulk of it was, from my understanding, researched by going to special collections at Wooster and doing the research there, where all of this is well-documented. Phil Sandifer 01:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It's already been undeleted. Would anyone be offended if the deletion review stopped now? To me, the obvious things to do is redirect this to College of Wooster. The Afd was improperly closed. But the article is junk, and there's no point fixing it since it's about a bunch of unverifiable organizations. Also, national fraternities have been considered significant, but individual chapters have not. I'd do the redirect now, but I don't want to inconvenience anyone who's looking at the Deletion review. Actually, nevermind that. I've been bold and redirected. The previous version, for anyone watching this, is here. If anyone disagrees with the redirect, please feel free to revert it, I won't be remotely offended. Friday (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it was never deleted. DES brought this here per the new scope of DRV to examine a disputed keep, as he says in his nomination. -Splash 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, brain fart. Of course you're right. Anyway, why bring this here? It was obviously an improper Afd closure, anyone can see that. So the closure can be reverted by anyone who feels the need, without review here, right? Friday (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The case may be made that you could relist it - although I will contest that bitterly. But there is ABSOLUTELY no justification for taking an article that survived one AfD and was well on its way to surviving a second (albeit invalid) one and deleting all of its content in the name of making it a redirect. Phil Sandifer 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

When you summarily deleted a large number of debates and faced considerable criticism for doing so, you innocently said you were being WP:BOLD, until you were reminded that WP:BOLD doesn't speak about administrative activities to any useful extent. But here you are saying that in the course of normal editing, someone should not be WP:BOLD. Which they can be, and are positively encouraged to be. -Splash 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are sort of two options. 1)Just do it, because, as you say, the closure was obviously improper or 2)check that this is ok, first. The main intent of the change to DRV was to provide a steam-release before the need for admins to delete-war as happens too often. Now that there's a community forum I'm hopeful people will refrain from fighting. Perhaps I took too many optimism pills, but there we are. In this case, I'd be inclined to take 1), much as I said in my first comment. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ummm. A redirect is pretty clearly a "keep" on the k-d spectrum. - brenneman 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A merge is on the keep end - a "blank the article and replace it with a redirect" is in no way resembling a "keep." Phil Sandifer 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well in the "binary" AfD that I keep hearing so much about, such a redirect is a keep, in the sense that it's not a delete. People love to invoke the "binary" issue, but only when it suits them. -R. fiend 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to myself, I justified it by common sense. Do you object to all edits for some period of time, or just redirects? BTW, I find it bizarre that your edit summary accused me of redirecting against Afd consensus. It sure looked to me like you were trying to control the apparent "Afd consensus" with your closure. In fact, you seem to be way more worried about what you think the "rules" are than about consensus. Friday (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The previous AfD was to keep. I think that AfD should stand unless there's actually a pressing reason to redo the AfD. No such reason has been presented. If we're going to allowed the pernicious fighting of undeletion requests on the grounds of "no new content has been presented, you should have weighed in when you had the chance," which we do, it's absurd to allow AfDs to continue to go through without the same standards. Phil Sandifer 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What you think is fine. What if someone thinks different to you? You'll have to accept that that's fine too. They'd be less pernicious if you stopped being so, well... -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been two deletion debates now on an article that is probably one of the best-researched on Misplaced Pages. The guy who wrote this went to special collections and did the research necessary. Pernicious is treating his contributions like worthless detritus. Fighting not to treat hard-working contributors like we don't give a damn what they're doing isn't pernicious - it's maintaining central principles of respect that are integral to the project. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• (I'm going to be talking about content, or are we not doing that now?) Well, really, have a look at the article. Everyone should do the thing that they are best at, and this person's research may by orders of magnitude better than mine, but this article is average. Rather than fighting the deletion battle every so often in whatever the venue of choice is, try and get some people together and make this into brilliant prose. Because, if we are very frank, well written articles about hokum rarely make their way to AfD, but badly written articles about perhaps worthy subjects often find themselves nominated. Twice. - brenneman 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Except that that's a foolish effort - if I focus on improving an article during the five days of a deletion debate, I'm likely to see my effort get deleted. If I focus it on keeping the article, I can fix it at my leisure. Phil Sandifer 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment You know it's as if we were discussing two completely different articles. One article is the article that I can see that gives detailed information that is sourced and verifiable. The other article is this mythical "junk" that is apparently unverifiable. It's ridiculous, how can we be talking about deleting an article where good editors can't even agree amongst ourselves that it's unverifiable junk? Does everything ever written in Misplaced Pages have to be derived from a ten minute google search? --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Overturn and relist Clearly, this is contentious. These issues are best confronted at AfD, as debate at that forum removes a degree of abstraction from the review function performed here. Clearly, there are grounds for doing so (defect of process), and good reason besides (consensus is better achieved than assumed.) Xoloz 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Comment' - I note that the debate was 4 keep, 2 merge, 4 delete - there is no plausible way that the article would have made it to the necessary 14 additional delete votes to generate a consensus to delete. In light of what was clearly a strong forming consensus to not delete, I think it is a tremendous slap in the face to the people who have worked on this article to put it in what amounts to a third attempt to delete the content. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are correct, why did you not wait for the normal AfD period to end? I agree with comments made above that if an AfD reaches no consensus, we do not deleted or take any other action based on the AfD -- the article stays as it is and normal editing continues. But the point is that this AfD did not reach any valid result, because it was closed early for no obvious reason. User:Snowspinner belives that it was headed for a "no-consensus" result, and such a result was a not unlikely sequel to the AfD up to the point that it was closed. Therefre the Afd should be reopened. A final consensus to delete is possible, if perhaps not likely. A number of people obviously thought this worth deleting, albiet rather less than 2/3rds of those who expressed a view on the AfD. A clear keep consensu is also possibel, and would be a much stronger argumet agaisnt a future AfD nomination. DES 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Several people above asked why i brought this here. I did so as an improper close of an Afd -- in effect a speedy keep without clear consensus. I arguably could have unilaterally re-opened the AfD, but I would prefer not to simply override another admin's closing decision in that way. If the consensus where was that reopenign the AfD was a poor idea, I would take note and the matter would rest there. If there is agreement here to re-open, then we will see what further AfD commetns there are, and a proper close will occur in due time. I saw that seemingly sensible argumetns were beign made on both sides of teh AfD -- I do not yet have an opnion about the article per se, that is, how I would vote on the reopened AfD. DES 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First, we are not "voting". The count of opinions illuminates but does not automatically decide the issue. But even if we were strictly vote-counting, I feel that I have to comment on the numbers above. 4 keep and 2 merge could be outweighed by 12 deletes - only 8 more than had already commented, not 14 more. If you had allowed the discussion to run its course, the decision would very likely have again resulted in a "no consensus" decision. That is not the same as a clear consensus to "keep". Instead, it is a statement that the community is willing to give the article the benefit of doubt for a while but reserves the right to revisit the decision. Let the process work and in the meantime fix the article instead of arguing about it here. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you're just ignoring the two merge votes in your count? Phil Sandifer 15:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No. 4 keep + 2 merge = 6. (x-6)/x = 66% solves to x = 18 and (x-6) = 12.

Comment - In response to the presumption that "no consensus" means something other than keep... do you realize the implications of this? It codifies the idea that articles need special permission to exist. It codifies a widespread assumption of bad faith, whereby every article is in an ambiguous position until it's been codified as "kept." I cannot express how deeply awful this entire idea is, and how breathtakingly poisonous it is. Phil Sandifer 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Wiki may well collapse and cease to exist as a result. Or people may stop writing articles. Or everything might get deleted. Or, you could just calm down a little teensy bit and realise that "no consensus" is the outcome of the debate, and not a new status of article. It says, as I am repetitiously having to repeat, that the participants in the debate reached no agreement on what should be done. That's all. -Splash 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, no article here is ever completely safe. No one seriously disputes that our Lord Jimbo can do anything He wants. So, if one is going to have a breakdown over the fact that there is an infinestimally tiny probability any article may die at any time, one should have had that breakdown on Misplaced Pages, day one. Xoloz 05:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete/Overturn (or whatever the terminology du jour is) and relist on AfD. All this how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about what "no consensus" means might be fascinating to y'all, but the bottom line is that the AfD process, once started, ought to finish absent any really clear-cut reason for shutting it down early. And the fact that y'all are arguing about it means it ain't. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, it wasn't a keep result, it was a no consensus result, which means that the article should not be given the relisting protection given to kept articles. No consensus means that we didn't decide what to do, but we are going to have to decide eventually. Titoxd 19:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. I'm taken aback by Phil's patently out-of-process closure. Not only was the prematurity inappropriate, but he actually participated in the debate (voting to keep the article)! That's a clear conflict of interest, and the consensus to overturn the decision is equally clear. I'm tempted to do so myself, but there's no harm in allowing this discussion to run its course. —Lifeisunfair 20:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. encephalon 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) NB. I gather that there has been some discussion over whether it is better to relist the inappropriately closed AFD or begin anew with a fresh one. I would approach this question by considering that the users who participated in the AFD that was inappropriately closed have every right to have their opinions counted; for them to be discarded, before even being properly considered, would be unfair. This DRV discussion may also be useful to any new participants. I therefore urge that the wrongly closed AFD be re-opened with a good explanatory note from the editor who relists, linking this discussion as well (via a diff, it would gone by the time the AFD is put up). As to length of time, an AFD which has been off the logs for at least 5 days may well deserve the proper 5 days; I see little point in relisting if we were going to pull it in a day or two. encephalon 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the above plan. —Lifeisunfair 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Stacy Armstrong

I was sifting through old AFD/VFD archives and came across Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Armstrong. The debate was closed by User:AllyUnion as a no consensus keep, then unilaterally overturned by another administrator. Even though vote count shouldn't be everything when closing debates, my count puts this at 6d/4k. AllyUnion's close was within reasonable bounds and should not have been overturned. I think that the rule before VFU/DRV was expanded to include disputed keeps, was that closed debates stay closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting case... I agree that closures shouldn't be unilaterally overturned (except by the original closer), but this is clearly a case in dispute, so it shouldn't be kept outright either. Overturn (Undelete) and relist at AfD. Xoloz 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio from IMDb in all revisions (apart from the external links etc). So leave this version deleted, but allow recreation, if we have authority to do that here. -Splash 10:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It may not have been the most orthodox action, but AllyUnion at the time wasn't counting nominator's votes, as he/she should have. 6/3 (the actual result when sockpuppet Vagrant is discounted) is a delete in most people's books, and no one gave a compelling reason to keep an actress who has never been in a real movie. The original article was the creation of a few users who have a long history of using Misplaced Pages to promote who I have to assume are their friends. Besides, as Splash pointed out, it was a copyvio anyway. -R. fiend 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: What Splash says. --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent example of why we needed this page to be a full Deletion Review, not merely VfU. The closure and overturn occurred back in February - before this process was in place. Under normal conditions, I would endorse the original closer's decision as within the range of discretion. The second admin is more correct about the vote-count but some of the comments (on both sides) are weak or non-existent and might well deserve less weight. Looking at the article and at the IMDB site, I question Splash's finding that this is a copyvio. In the original deletion discussion, Xezbeth said on 31 Jan 05 that "This is the first person i've seen who has a blank imdb page." I can't help but wonder if IMDB is drawing their data from us. No vote yet... Rossami (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You have convinced me. Delete as a copyvio regardless of the prior debate. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Certainly if the IMDb article came first, this one's a copyvio (the fact that the lines are in a different order is moot: the overwhelming majority of the article is verbatim), but if we got the article first it may or may not be depending on who wrote the IMDb page. The fact that the lines in the IMDb article have been re-ordered in the first revision here into a better order, and the sentences written to start with "She has..." rather than just "Has..." makes me think the IMDb article is the original. Otherwise, the slightly better grammar would surely have been copy-pasted into IMDb? Anybody know how to work out when an IMDb page was made? -Splash 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If IMDB host more of our content than they can under fair use and do so without attribution then they are in violation of copyright law. How do we notify them? --- Charles Stewart 16:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO, it is unlikely that IMDb are hosting out content, as I said above. We are (or were) more likely to be hosting theirs. If, hypothetically, IMDb are hosting our content, then that may be OK if each of the authors has consented to this: although the material is released by Misplaced Pages under the GFDL, authors retain original copyright on their work. Now that is unlikely, of course, but still. Anyway: to reiterate, I am sceptical that IMDb copied us, despite the comment in the VfD. -Splash 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The GFDL is a "share-alike"/viral license. They cannot just incorporate WP material without syndicating what they incorporate it into. It looks to me that someone or other is violating someone's copyright. --- Charles Stewart 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Errr....that's what I just said! But anyway, I was making the technical point that each of the authors could have chosen to license their content to IMDb under some other license, since they each retain the rights to their work. They could have all got together and reached some agreement without needing to reach for WP. More likely, of course, is that if the IMDb article comes from ours then it is a copy-paste and therefore GFDL'd and they would need to do something about it. -Splash 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment We appear to have an article about her at Stacy Kernweis (her married name, judging from imdb), which is linked as "Stacy Armstrong" from Democrazy (film). I'm not sure if the current Kernweis article is a copyvio of the imdb page (it's not a direct copy, certainly.) Also, out of interest, R. fiend, what makes you say that Vagrant was/is a sockpuppet? -- AJR | Talk 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh, that's interesting. If we want to play with process, then Stacy Kernweis is a speedy as substantially identical recreation of deleted content. But we're not yet sure if that deletion was in process or not, and also a copyvio would never prevent recreation. However, Stacy Kernweis is a highly derivative work, very clearly based on the IMDb article. It's probably a copyvio since there is almost no creativity required to go from the IMDb article to ours. It is also very very similar to the deleted article, in fact only different in probably 10 words. If the Kernweis article is a copyvio, then the Armstrong article certainly is. -Splash 17:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - why do we defer so unerringly to administrator discretion when they close as delete, but allow unilateral overturnings on keeps? Phil Sandifer 17:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't. That's why it comes here for review. - Tεxτurε 18:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was really responding to some of the comments above. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Still, they do both refer to the situation as it used to be, when keeps could not be discussed and so any overturnings were necessarily unilateral and then had to be fought over somewhere once deleted. Usually that fight was in the deletion log, but occasionally here. Now, of course, a disputed keep result should be brought here so that unilateral overturning of any kind should be unneeded. Better, no? -Splash 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recreate as per original close. 6-3? Don't make me laugh. Relist if desired. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is slightly unusual. Discussions now over the appropriateness of the second admin's action are probably futile; for all we know he may have messaged AlleyUnion over the error and obtained his agreement with the deletion. The important issues before us concern the article's status. It is not wise to restore a copyright violation; no matter where editors find themselves on the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum for a given article, most editors have enough respect for this articlespace policy that suggestions to restore a copyvio are generally met with appropriate opposition. Rossami correctly points out the comment on the AFD attesting to a blank IMDB page; however, I am very sceptical that the current IMDB page is derived from WP, because:

1. I am unable to see how IMDB could have copied our page if they didn't have one in January, and ours was deleted shortly after.
2. It is exceedingly unlikely for IMDB to be collecting information on its entries from stubs on an open wiki; organizations like that normally have paid editors, copyeditors, journalists etc to obtain and present their data.
3. A WP stub which is almost word-for-word similar to another site, and provides an external link referencing that very site as the source of its information, is a good indicator that plagiarism has occured.

So please don't restore the copyvio. This is not in any way prejudicial to a lawful article on this person that meets Misplaced Pages's articlespace policies. encephalon 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said. However, one should note that IMDb, though not a wiki, does take submissions from the public (it doesn't shy away from promoting people, as we do). Read the "Caveat emptor" section in The Internet Movie Database article. The assertion that they "have paid editors, copyeditors, journalists etc to obtain and present their data" does not mean they don't rely on submissions as well. That, I believe, is why you can often find "uncredited" roles listed for minor actors (ie extras). It also means that the same individual could have submitted the same material to both sites independently, though barring any evidence of this, we cannot assume it is the case. -R. fiend 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• But of course, you're right. I remember now seeing invites to submit profiles on the site. Yes, that rather complicates matters. An author who writes text of their own and clicks the submit button on WP automatically releases it under GFDL. IMDB holds a more restrictive copyright, of course; however, I wonder if they have developed a policy for this kind of thing. But you're correct about what to do, irrespective of what their policy might be. If we find identical text we'd have to treat it as a copyvio on our end. encephalon 06:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

November 1

Zak Koretz (magician)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zak Koretz (magician) see also

I would like this article to be undeleted because if you call it a shameless self promotion, what do you call all of the listings written here... List of magicians
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.106 (talk • contribs)

• Rebuttal, actually this article is about a member of the Magic Castle, just like many of the magicians on that list, while I am not trying to equate myself to Houdini...I do consider myself skilled enough to be one of a short list of people under 21 who have passed the rigerous auditions to be admitted as a junior member of the magic castle (the current world champion magician Jason Latimer is a former junior member who graduated from the program several years ago). Additionally, I do perform at the magic castle and if you are in town, feel free to stop by on a Sunday and see my show. And as for Xoloz...A lot of the "magicians you have heard of" are DEAD so I don't think they would mind. Also, the Junior program is highly respected among magicians, and produces many of the newer and future greats of magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.106 (talk • contribs)

• I'd call list of magicians (which includes Houdini, Blackstone, Penn and Teller, David Blaine, James Randi, et al.) a list of people I've heard of, for the most part. If you think there is a non-notable magician there, nominate him for deletion. If you think Houdini is a non-notable magician, quit doing magic. As for the article, Endorse closer (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no defect of process or new information presented, nomination of poor quality (and possibly insulting to very famous magicians). Xoloz 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strangely enough, young friend nominator, 4 of the 6 people to whom I directly referred are still alive and performing. :) Study more magic. Xoloz 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly. The Afd was properly done. The article is unsourced and appears to be about some kid who does magic, which isn't remotely comparable to articles on verifiably famous magicians. Friday (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse, since I closed it, but Friday said it best: it's not even in the same league as Houdini et al. Titoxd 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Without any new information presnted here, and no suggestion that the nominator might have swung the debate and no error in process and no interest in having the article, there is no reason to reverse or re-run the AfD. I call List of magicians a navigational tool, by the way. Once you've had some media attention and acquired some outright notability, you can always try rewriting the article: if you have become genuinely notable, it won't be speedy deleted because it will include lots of new information not currently available. -Splash 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing new here. and as for if you call it a shameless self promotion, what do you call all of the listings written here... List of magicians, I'd say that unless you're suggesting that the late Harry Houdini, the late Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin, and the not-late Ricky Jay have been adding themselves to Misplaced Pages to bolster their limited public awareness, I'd call it a complete non-sequitor. --Calton | Talk 08:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: DRV request provides no grounds for undeletion. --- Charles Stewart 14:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Noteworthy magician's perform outside their magic club and get press attention (at the very least by magic magazines). - Mgm| 15:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. *drew 06:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your mom

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Your mom

I'd like this article to be considered for undeletion. I think there was a lack of information about the distinction between the slang "your mom" (a one-time retort) and the dozens, a back-and-forth contest that happens to often employ "yo momma is..." or "your mom's so..." phrases. Modern usages of "Your mom" are even further from the dozens in that they are not meant to be insulting, but almost as a nonsensical inside joke, or even as a parody on those who do use it as an insult. Example: "I just created a new Misplaced Pages page." "Your mom just created a new Misplaced Pages page!". An example of what the undeleted page might look like can be found here. Thanks to all who take the time to vote, even if this is a rather silly subject. Turnstep 01:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, as the people involved in the AfD (including myself!) clearly didn't realize the distinction. The article is currently a redirect, though it has bounced back and forth between that and something attempting to address the fact that "your mom" is something entirely separate. In any event, the redirect is inappropriate, because yo momma ≠ your mom when it comes to humor. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting... The page history shows signs of lost versions. It records a first deletion date that is 14 days before the first edit. I suspect there may have been some page-moves which are complicating our ability to trace the history. Looking at the different versions, I want to argue that this article should be deleted because all the non-vandalized and non-redirect versions I found were mere dictionary definitions, that is, they were discussions of the meaning, usage and origins of a word or phrase. Specifically, they were detailed discussions of the usage of the phrase. That kind of content is more lexical than encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Oddly, however, the option to transwiki the article to Wiktionary was never discussed. Instead, the overwhelming consensus was to redirect. I see no process problems with that decision. Reversing the redirect decision is a matter to be discussed on the respective Talk pages, not here. The redirect decision was carried out on 30 Oct at 19:09. Two minutes later, Brian0918 deleted the article without explanation. It was subsequently re-created and currently stands as a redirect (again). I can find no justification for the deletion. The article's current content is identical to the version that was deleted. Unless Brian can present a compelling justification for the deletion, I must conclude that the deletion was out-of-process. In the interim, I am going to carry out a history-only undeletion on the article. Any further discussion about whether this should remain a redirect or an independent article should be carried out on the Talk page. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rossami. I have started the relevant discussion. If there are no objections soon, I'll assume it is safe to remove the redirect. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for a disambig. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

October 31

List of song titles phrased as questions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions

I do not believe I have to give a proper reason for this undeletion wish. Rather, I'd ask those who deleted the list to explain to me how they define "unmaintainable". Does it mean that we delete an article when people work on it and it gets longer? <KF> 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision (keep deleted). Yes, you do need to provide a reason why you want this list undeleted. The list got a fair amount of discussion and pretty much everyone agreed that the criteria for inclusion in the list are too broad, hence it is unmaintainable. Titoxd 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). The discussion was robust and the community decision was clear. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted. We had this already (bottom half), and it was firmly kept deleted. No reason to overturn both an afd, and a previous VfU. Sometimes, articles get deleted. -Splash 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• What exactly are the "criteria for inclusion" apart from a question mark at the end of a song title? And again: What is the meaning of "unmaintainable"? Keeping on claiming that the list is/was "unmaintainable" does not answer this question. And if asked to give a reason for keeping the list, the most obvious one is that it cannot be found anywhere else—certainly not in a printed encyclopaedia, but probably nowhere in the Internet either. <KF> 02:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons for deletion are given in the AfD debate linked to above. That's why we run AfD debates and why DRV is not usually a place to repeat them. -Splash 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No reason(s) given there except that one word: "unmaintainable". Well, a classic case of point of no return it seems. Thank God there are Misplaced Pages mirrors all over the place. <KF> 03:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unmaintainable means that the list theoretically could reach an infinite length. If that is the case, then it means that it is just grouping things that don't belong together, which makes it an indiscriminate collection of facts. We like our lists short and sweet (as in List of spacecraft), not a hedgepodge of random stuff piled together. Titoxd 03:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the explanation. I've already given up, so rather than asking you to define "we" I'd like to say good night now. <KF> 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
          • We = Wikipedians, what we have decided through consensus and has been written down in policy as a result (relevant policy: WP:NOT). Titoxd 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Also Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. Uncle G 11:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Deleted VfU heard this previously. No new evidence. List still bad idea. Xoloz 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no process violations alleged, clear consensus to delte, no new issues raised here. DES 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. --Briangotts (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. It's not just that you think it should have been kept, right?-Splash 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep deleted). In addition to good reasons given by others, I strongly believe a proper reason should have to be given for the undeletion wish. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. encephalon 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Faced with such an overwhelming deletionist majority I don't see any way for me to continue arguing in favour of this list let alone wishing for its undeletion. If you want to know the truth, I didn't give a "proper reason" for undeletion at first because I thought it had to be either a mistake or a (rather pointless) practical joke that the list had been deleted. However, I did provide an argument later on, after I had realized that people were serious about this. My point is that nowhere on the Internet—except in Misplaced Pages mirror sites—and nowhere else (in printed form) will you find such a list. Its usefulness should be rated by (past, present, and future) users rather than a handful of current administrators. The question how valid the pseudo-democratic procedure is which almost all contributors to this debate are using as counterarguments does not belong here but should, as I see it, be discussed somewhere else.
  • I have retrieved this list as well as the other one ("...more than twenty times...") for my personal use. However, I was only able to do so in unwikified form. Would it be okay if I undeleted them, copied them onto my hard disc and immediately deleted them again? Or is there some other way I could achieve the same result? <KF> 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Technically, you can't undelete them, since you're an admin, but if people don't object, I'll userfy it to a page in your User space (like User:KF/List or similar) so you can use it there. I don't object to that. Titoxd 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • KF is an admin. -Splash 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Then that means I went over WP:LA really quickly. I apologize. Titoxd 05:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. <KF> 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

Ditto. Ordinary deletionism is bad enough, but disappointing all those contributors who have made a total of 514 (!) edits to this article is more than I can stomach. You can't be serious. I just can't believe that List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks is allowed to survive while this article has to go. Who gives a damn about Clear Channel? What is Clear Channel? <KF> 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision (Keep Deleted). the AFD is quite clear, the list is not useful, and the list itself violates WP:NOT. Listcruft. Titoxd 01:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Rossami (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Disappointment is not on the list of reasons for not deleting an article! I could spend hours writing a wonderful article about my wonderfully non-notable company and would have to live with it being deleted. If you don't like the other article then, instead of choosing the "drive Misplaced Pages to the standard of the worst article", nominate it for deletion. Article's stand or fall usually on their own merits, not on the (dis-)merits of other articles. There's no reason to suppose the nominator here could have swung the pretty-near unanimous deletion debate, and certainly no new information is presented, apart from wishing, and I don't think the encyclopedia is better with it restored. -Splash 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer (keep deleted). No defect of process or new information given. I voted against this at AfD as well, and still find it to be listcruft, and distressingly random in its criterion of interest. Xoloz 16:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision Valid AfD, with clear consensus. Quite in accord with WP:NOT and other relevant policy. No new issues presented here, and no process violations. Keep this deleted, and please do not try to recreate this. DES 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• relist. --Briangotts (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. -Splash 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer (keep deleted). No problem with the AfD is mentioned. Amusing list, but the "rough consensus" was crystal clear, and no fresh information has been presented that would suggest that a new AfD would have a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. encephalon 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. As for who Clear Channel is, they're the company that runs most of the radio stations in the United States. They've got a great deal of influence about what does or does not get airtime. --Carnildo 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep delete - hell no --Doc (?) 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Hell, some of those 514 edits are mine, and I can't say I'm terribly disappointed with the results (if it weren't for the article, I probably never would have counted the number of times Edward Tudor-Pole says "Who Killed Bambi", but that's hardly important). It was a vaguely interesting list to some, but not exactly encyclopedic. If anyone wants it temporarily undeleted for use outside of Misplaced Pages, I'd be open to that, however. -R. fiend 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid Afd. *drew 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ticalcs and Vdesign

Please note that there ARE communities (such as http://www.ticalc.org/) that deal with TI Calculators. I don't see why an article like that should be deleted.

Additionally, the aforementioned articles undertook a speedy deletion without having proper cause. "Not notable" is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion!

The only way that such a deletion can be allowed is if it is discussed first.

• Keep deleted Ticalcs, undelete and list Vdesign. Ticalcs, in the state it was deleted, stands no chance to be kept in AFD, and the content in the article is insufficient to the degree it almost fits CSD A1. Feel free to make a better article if you want, but it might be listed in AFD at any moment. As for Vdesign, it is in much better shape, so a run through AFD might be appropriate; that said, I cannot guarantee they won't be deleted. Titoxd 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn Speedy Deletion, list at AfD on both "Not notable" is, indeed, no reason for a speedy. I don't know the state of these, but since one was clearly a process-error, I say that both should have a shot at AfD, wherein each might come to the attention of many knowledgeable eyes. Xoloz 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete both and list on AFD if desired. Out-of-process speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• A sample from the start of Ticalcs is:

  Ticalcs is a budding TI Calculator Forum that is located at the URL (link)

  It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members. The most active are: Vladik, Pure, bfr, bcherry, anykey, and Simon.

  What Features Does It Have?

  Very Good Community

  Frequent updates

  Good Staff

• It hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hades if restored, so keep Ticalcs deleted and the nominator can simply write a proper article — the current version is no more than crufty advertising. The other one is little more than advertising, but I suppose it ought to be undelete Vdesign and immediately AfD, where that one doesn't have a lot of hope, either. You'll want to remove the smilies and parenthetical in-jokes if it's restored. In both cases I would strongly advise the nominator to just go and write decent articles rather than seek restoration of these two very poor ones. -Splash 09:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some mention of the highly procedural nature of VfU might be in order. Voters there are, or should be, interested only in the validity of the deletion process, not the content." — Splash 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. And I have said in several places that speedies are more about content than process since the content never got debated. I can't be bothered finding the diffs; you can believe me or not. Hence I provided the content, and you continue to debate process. Oops! -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, speedy deletion reviews must focus upon content, because that's how we determine whether the correct process was followed. Contrary to your claim above, my vote is based upon the article's content (which I thank you for posting in its entirety). Which speedy deletion criterion do you believe applies? If the answer is "none," what special circumstance warranted the application of WP:IAR? —Lifeisunfair 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I explained really quite clearly that my reason for keeping it deleted is that the restoration is a purely bureaucratic exercise and a thorough waste of time, rather than a necessarily valid speedy. The basis in CSD policy is thin, but there's easily an arguable case for A1 and also as G3 (WP:VAND says that spam is vandalism and I'm pretty easy on the fact that the article is spam: nearly every word is promotional.) I don't feel any need to resort to IAR: he who does so pretty much loses the debate by so doing. -Splash 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn both and lsit on AfD. Out of process deletion. Mind you, Ticalcs is IMO unlikley to pass AfD unless it is drastically rewritten during the process, and significant indications of notability are provided. Vdesign will probably need a rewrite to survive AfD also, but "non-notable" is just not an acceptable reason to speedy delete. DES 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete these improper speedies. List on AfD only if you feel that they should be listed. Listing on AfD following undeletion isn't mandatory; as always, it's up to anyone who looks at an article to decide if they want to list it there. That includes admins who undelete articles. Unfocused 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Under the current procedures, relisting is automatic unless a 3/4ths supermajority opts to overturn the decision, and opts not to relist. But in this case I am specifically opting for a relisting. DES 17:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If nothing else, it is a simple courtesy to list undeleted on articles, especially speedies, on AfD since at least one person thought they should be deleted, and that's all an AfD nomination takes. Not always necessary if the article was plainly good and mistakenly speedied, but in such rock-bottom cases as these it doens't seem in the least unreasonable. -Splash 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on Afd Every article that does not obviously fall under the speedy criteria deserves an AfD discussion before deletion. Not a snowball's chance type arguments are inappropriate for admins to make about articles whose deletion has not been openly discussed. *I* can't comment without seeing the article, and I don't think replicating choice excerpts here on DRV counts as seeing it (no edit history, etc.). --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I will make what comments I like on the article, thank you very much. And the excerpts aren't 'choice', they are the first however many lines of the article. Here's the whole thing, in case you think I'm trying to bias things by being an evil, deletionist, inappropriate admin — there is only this single edit in the history (a fact you don't need an inappropriate admin to check for yourself):

    What Is It?

    Ticalcs is a budding TI Calculator Forum that is located at the URL http://ticalcs.proboards41.com .

    It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members. The most active are: Vladik, Pure, bfr, bcherry, anykey, and Simon.

    What Features Does It Have?

    * Very Good Community

    * Frequent updates

    * Good Staff

    * Coding Support

    * Good Links

    * And Much More...

    So undeleting it is a purely bureaucratic exercise with zero value. Any article that survived AfD would bear no relation to this. -Splash 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please calm down, Splash. Charles criticized your argument. He did not refer to you as "inappropriate" or anything remotely resembling or implying "evil" or "deletionist."

Mmmhmm. I must be imagining the word "inappropriate" preceding the word "make" on my screen, then. -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this is a "purely bureaucratic exercise with zero value." More is at stake here than these specific articles, and I see a great deal of value in preventing the establishment of a dangerous precedent. —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• The comment wasn't directed just at what Splash said: Titoxd also made the snowball-type-remark stands no chance before. I don't like these sorts of arguments, even though I can sympathise with the process-minimisng reasoning that causes them, since they are remarks whose ground cannot be properly grasped by non-admins. The selectivity of the exceprting wasn't my principal beef with Splash's comment, more important was the lack of edit history. --- Charles Stewart 18:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: Thanks for the tip about Special:Undelete - I had thought the page showed only admin edits to the page. I retract my compliant about not seeing edit history --- Charles Stewart 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD. Obviously improper speedies, and should be discussed in AfD though I expect them to be voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete both and list at AfD. It appears as though Ticalcs has little chance of surviving an AfD debate, but I see absolutely no justification for ignoring all rules by sidestepping the correct process. To uphold this decision would encourage admins to unilaterally delete non-CSD-applicable articles without discussion. I can think of no better method of dissuading new contributors from continuing to participate in the project. —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued: those who think the sky may well fall if leave this deleted have expended many words telling us all so. They could hav written 20 stubs in that time. Why didn't anyone actaully write an article on this? Is it because they know it'd be a waste of their time? I couldn't really care less if these masterpieces are restored or not, because I am pretty sure they will be gone again five days later. Sorry, I must be the only one round here making such inappropriate comments. At least we move a step closer to the quality organ that is everything2.com in the meantime. -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Those of us who are arguing that the article should be undeleted share the same goal that motivates you: to create and maintain the best possible encyclopedia. Obviously, we have different opinions of how this can be accomplished, but that doesn't mean that we can't be respectful of one another's viewpoints. Do you honestly believe that the above mockery is somehow constructive? —Lifeisunfair 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and I'm sorry, mockery is not constructive. The mockery-free version is: I do not think that restoring either of these articles advances the Project a single bit, and in fact it retards the project, by offering the possibility that someone may come across the articles and, laughing in justifiable scorn, never return to Misplaced Pages. How can you rely on a reference source that is so without standards as to include the above article? So it'll be on AfD (though Unfocused appears to think that unnecessary), but that doesn't really cut it: we'd be better off without the article, and nearly everybody here appears to agree....at the same time as they say we should restore it. -Splash 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, actually, in the opinion of some administrators (myself included) Ticalcs fits within CSD A1. Undeleting it in its current state would result in a butchering of the article, maybe a few speedy requests in the AFD itself, and we would all get back to the same point, a deleted article. Yes, the article could be rewritten while in AFD, but that can happen now too, and I even went so far as to recommend that. Misplaced Pages does not have to be a bureaucracy. Titoxd 03:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that CSD A1 applies, and I also don't believe that it's a good idea to send the message that it's okay for admins to delete articles on the basis of non-notability, or that it's appropriate to treat a deletion review as a retroactive AfD debate (thereby excluding readers from the process). —Lifeisunfair 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is ok for admins to unilaterally go and delete articles on basis of non-notability, and I even got into Tony Sidaway's RFC to defend process. However, in this case, there's no precedent being set (or it shouldn't be read as a precedent anyway), my opinion is that Ticalcs was a valid speedy for not having enough context. Titoxd 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are admins who could possibly think that an article candidate that contains a URL and claims to noteworthiness (It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members, Very Good Community) falls under CSD A1 then we have a problem. --- Charles Stewart 14:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A1 deals with context, not notability. Noone is saying this could be a non-notable speedy, since A7 only applies to people. Moreover, A1 wants very little, but not no, context. This article says "X is a website about TI calculators, and it's one year old". That is certianly little context; whether it is little enough to speedy or not is a question. But it's ok to debate it without all these implications of impending doom if someone presses delete. -Splash 23:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Several comments. First, my 'votes' on this Review: relist both for out-of-process application of CSD.

  Second, there is a suggestion that deleted articles which are restored via WP:DRV should not automatically be relisted unless someone feels strongly that it should. In practice, there is probably little difference between this view and the opposite view, ie. that restored articles should be automatically listed on AFD unless there is a very strong reason not to. However, the difference is important enough to examine. I support the latter view. Remember firstly that articles can only be deleted by administrators; these are generally users who have a significant amount of experience with WP and a higher than average understanding of policy. If an administrator believes an article's shortcomings are severe enough to warrant deletion, that is usually (ie. far more often than not) prima facie evidence that something is at least quite wrong with the article. Admins do make mistakes however; in this particular case, the admin 1. selected an inappropriate method of deletion (SD instead of AFD) and 2. appears to have misunderstood CSD A7. DR addresses these mistakes. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, these mistakes are not egregious errors (for example, deleting a perfectly acceptable article like Canada), but rather technical/procedural mistakes made in deleting articles which are nevertheless very poor contributions. It therefore stands to reason that all articles which are restored be listed, unless it is clear that an obvious error was made. No harm comes from community examination of an article thought to be poor enough for deletion by at least one experienced editor (as long as the proper procedure is followed, per WP:DRV). There is also important for a second reason. The majority of inappropriate contributions to WP are caught soon after they are made, via NP patrol. That is to say, maintaining bare standards on WP is a front-loaded process: an inappropriate contribution that slips through has a good chance of remaining on WP even if it violated every cardinal articlespace policy in the book—something I believe all of us can agree is not good, regardless of almost any spot we usually find ourselves on in the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum. I am quite surprised that there is a possible suggestion that the articles in this review, Ticalcs and Vdesign, should not be listed fortwith—they clearly contravene cardinal mainspace policy.

  Third, we have the issue of clearly inappropriate pages which were nevertheless wrongly deleted. What to do when we are faced with articles of debatable merit that are wrongly speedied is clear: restore and have the debate. What to do when faced with virtually meritless contributions that were speedied under the wrong criterion, and which are virtually certain not to pass AFD, is less clear. One can be a stickler and send all inappropriate speedies to AFD. This is a simple and not unadmirable stance: it has the advantage of being the principled view. An alternate view is to not request an undelete if it is overwhelmingly clear that the outcomes will not differ. This is not uncommon; see for example The Sexy Sluts delete discussion on AN/I where Tony Sidaway remarks: "It was an obvious invalid speedy, but I don't feel moved to undelete it and I doubt whether any other admin will." There are other examples. Suffice to say, it is not unreasonable for Splash to take such a view, if in his opinion Ticalcs will simply not have a different outcome on AFD. If you disagree, and think the article should be AFD'd after undeletion, by all means go ahead and vote to list it. Or ask for a history undelete to look at the article yourself. But I disagree that it is "inappropriate for admins" to ask for a kd in such circumstances, as long as they explain themselves. The final decision on WP:DRV will depend on all comments.

  Fourth, there is a suggestion that "...it's a good idea to send the message that it's okay for admins to delete articles on the basis of non-notability..." Lifeisunfair, you probably meant to refer only to non-bio articles, but if not please note that articles are lawfully speedily deleted daily for non-notability, per WP:CSD A7. Regards encephalon 01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

October 29

Scandal Sheet!

This comic was deleted as being non-notable. I would disagree - the comic is well-known among comics fans, crossed-over with Something Positive, one of the most popular of all webcomics, and has managed to keep going for several years continuously. Also, while its forum may be, as the editor in question said, a 'ghost town', the livejournal community it's connected to isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth Munchkin (talk • contribs) 14:36, October 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted The AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scandal Sheet! appears valid. Nothing listed in this nomination that was not brought up during the AfD. --Allen3  15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the above. Valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted/Endorse Closer per Allen3. Xoloz 17:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• kd. I do not see any process problems. There is no new information that compels reconsideration. encephalon 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The information available now is the same as the information available at the time, and so there's no need to re-run the AfD debate. If someone provides some information that warrants a re-consideration, they are of course free to present it. I don't think the presence of the nominator here in the AfD would have made any difference, since the info offered isn't different, and the numbers involved in the AfD debate are sufficient. -Splash 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Seven of the nine votes in the AfD were to delete, which is a sufficient consensus. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any issues with the AfD, and no new information has been brought forward that would suggest that the outcome would now be different if the article were re-nominated. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (Keep deleted), no new information to overturn the AFD. Titoxd 01:56, 31 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)

November 6

Southern Ivy League

Please review the deletion of Southern Ivy League. This is a widely used colloquial term in the South, and it was deleted by people with no regional connections. (In fact, it was deleted by someone who lives in Malaysia and has no idea what the educational system in the US South is like.) I am a Southern academic, and I hear this term often. It was acknowledged to be a colloquial term in the article, but it was deleted by people who just did not like the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandy (talk • contribs) 19:10, November 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The AfD for this article is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League.--Allen3  21:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse (keep deleted). Valid AfD. Whether the AfD nominator may or may not have heard the term due to geographical issues is immaterial. The primary issue raised by the AfD is the fact that the article provided no sources and was thus deemed unverifiable. Until reliable sources are provided to demonstrate the basic claims of the article the AfD should stand. --Allen3  21:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you for your thoughts, Vandy. The participants in the WP:AFD for this article, found here, came to a pretty convincing consensus—they were, in fact, nearly unanimously in favor of deletion (7D-1K), with your opinion being the sole dissenting one. I do not disbelieve you when you say you've heard the term for 20 years (I've heard "Southern Ivies" myself, though not for as long). However, please note that the participants did not decide on deletion based on whether or not they had heard the term; on the contrary, it was a recurrent theme in the debate that the claims made in the article were not sourced. Properly sourcing claims to reputable works and references is a particularly important tenet of Misplaced Pages editing; since the encyclopedia is a wiki that is open to editing by anyone with an internet connection, statements and claims made in articles should be always referenced, in accordance with the documents WP:V and WP:RS. It is the only way to ensure the relative reliability of the articles. As such I find myself persuaded that the AFD reached the correct conclusion, and endorse their decision. However, this being a wiki, you are always free to recreate the article, taking care to address the criticisms made in the AFD about the original (ie. please properly source the article if you are going to rewrite it; articles that are recreated without significant improvements are liable to immediate deletion without further debate). If you would like to obtain the text of the deleted article to help with rewriting, this can be easily arranged. Kind regards encephalon 21:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) As I noted in the debate, I have heard the term, but it is not used with consistency or frequency. I once heard a student at East Carolina University claim that institution was a "Southern Ivy." The term is puffery, and is not formalized in any way that I know of (or that was demonstrated in the article.) Xoloz 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Songs in triple meter

Please review the deletion of this article. People were inferring inclusion criteria from things written on the afd discussion page rather than from the article itself where it clearly stated that the only inclusion criterion for a song is that it be in either 3/4 time or 6/8 time. this criterion is not arbitrary. It is specific and simple. Many people voting did not understand time signatures and were voting because they were sick of 'listcruft' in general and musical 'listcruft' in particular. I applaud the effort to keep shoddy lists off of of wiki, but I believe my article got unfairly caught up in the middle of a debate of a much larger issue/problem. I believe that the frustration stemming from genuine 'listcruft' colored the thoughts and votes of wikipedians who are probably fairly objective people overall. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.96.24 (talk • contribs) 22:36, November 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: AfD discussion located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter --Allen3  22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse/Keep Deleted I voted for deletion on grounds of unmaintainability. 3/4 is a common time; "list of song with irregular time" is a list, and is fine. This list is similar to "list of love songs", so innumberable as to make any attempted list useless as hopelessly deficient and incomplete. Xoloz 04:05, 7 NovembeT 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted. Seems valid to me. the creator said that he made the page "in an effort to show that 3/4 and 6/8 has had a resurgence in popularity and commercial vitality". Well, that can be said in a sentence and mentioned in one of several articles (or more than one of several) and backed up with references without having to start listing every conceivable example of how it has had this resurgance. Another unmaintainable list, which would contain every minuet and waltz to say the least. -R. fiend 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted, the list could theoretically reach infinite length, which tells me that it isn't a very well defined list to begin with, and I don't see procedural problems with the deletion. Titoxd 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Golden Sun Password

Please review the deletion of this article. Votes in favor of keeping the article were pouring in. Mailer Diablo asserted that these votes were by sock puppets. This is not so. The following two individuals are not sock puppets. They have only visited this article because this is the only article in Misplaced Pages which is of interest to them.

Keep Misplaced Pages's purpose is to give information right? Well, this article gives information for the Gameboy Advance game, Golden Sun. It will help new players and/or other people who play this game understand Golden Sun's password system. It also helps the player as if you don't have the original Golden Sun, you don't have a password to use. People who just bought this game (part 2) can simply choose a password from the list to use. Isaac

and

• Keep wikipedia is to inform people. This article will serve people to understand everything they need for Golden Sun and it's password system. Those who say it doesn't are only willing to troll. Mamsaac

There would be many more votes if there was an article-discussion location for the votes. Also each person contributing passwords was a keep vote.

User: CobraGT 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision, keep deleted. The AFD was valid, the undeletion request does not provide any significant new information to the debate, the page itself goes against Misplaced Pages policy, and the closer has the privilege to discount voters with few edits in the project (as sockpuppets) or who remained anonymous. There already is an article for the game, so what more do you want? Misplaced Pages isn't Everything2. Titoxd 05:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid Afd; the "votes" referred to in the nomination above are both unsigned (or, perhaps, defectively signed), so they must be considered null and void. The rest were discounted within closer's discretion. The article is also plainly in violation of policy, a consideration the closer likely weighed in finding consensus. Xoloz 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Xoloz. *drew 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• alsoAnother independent keep vote is If You Read Only One Thing, Make This It GameFAQs says its not the place for this, and frankly the purpose of Misplaced Pages may not be to store every little thing for every little game, it is meant to compile the knowledge of it's user in a way that makes it conveniant. I see no problem in allowing this page to continue, and people that have a bone to pick with GameFAQs shouldn't take it out on this rather nice idea.
  • It is definitely of importance that these are not socket puppets.(i) There are many who benefit from an article on the Golden Sun Password (ii) The mini-administrator lacks sufficient fluency with nuances of language to realize that these are all independent personalities (iii) The mini-administrator is of the belief that his cleverness gives him the power of ascertaining fact.CobraGT

November 4

Sonic: Time Attacked

The article went to the deletion list because the game was not official. There's no rule against articles about fan made games or another fan made material, as long as it's notable enough. The page was deleted with only 3 votes. Sonic: Time Attacked is considered by many the most notable fan game ever created. Doing the Google Test with it, only searching on english websites with the game name on quotes, gave about 579 results --Mark the Echidna 18:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn. This game is of remarkable popularity among Sonic fans. The article itself is not illegal and does not infringe any copyright laws. It really should be undeleted. --200.150.31.74 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) — the article was created in January, has a good few edits and is beyond a stub. It might be reasonably notable. Although the Afd delete was valid, very few people were interested in it: sometimes five days is too short. --Gareth Hughes 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• The Afd debate was here. It got 2 delete votes and 1 keep vote, noted as an aeditors first edit, whcih the closer might reasonably have discounted. The reasons specifed for deletion were "...fangame, not official" and "software equivalent of fanfic". The qyuestion of notability was not rasied, but might well have been. The article seems to have been fairly detailed and was not at all a stub -- i didn't check the sources. The AfD was valid, but very slim. OTOH no new reason has been provided above. I am torn on this one, but finally come down as overturn deletion and relist on AfD to allow for a broader consensus one way or the other. If this is done, i hope and trust that the clsoer will be strict about discounting possible sockpuppets and meatpuppets. DES 18:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Second. I really WOULD like to just have it undeleted and leave it at that, but the fact it's a fan-created project leads to ambiguous notability. Redoing the AfD, perhaps with a little more fanfare, would help some. Still, I'd like to see the article undelted, if only because that would mean Sonic Robo Blast 2 would be next in line, and I'd REALLY not like to see that deleted. --Shadow Hog 01:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete). In addition to the fact that the AfD discussion had very few participants, the sole justification provided by the two "delete" voters (the fact that the game is fan-created) is entirely invalid. The subject's notability and the condition of the article (which evidently was fairly solid) were not addressed, so these votes should not have carried any weight. —Lifeisunfair 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fan fiction is generally considers alomst automatically non-notable, and it takes a large showing for any fanfiction work to survive AfD. Similar issues exixt in this case, and the extra showing of clear notability was not IMO made in the article as it stood. DES 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This game isn't comparable to fan-written stories (which almost never reach a high level of fame). A video game needn't be commercial to be notable, and the one distinction between this game and a 100% original work is the fact that it's based upon pre-existing characters (which only increases the likelihood of popularity). If this particular video game is non-notable (and I have no opinion on the matter), that's a valid reason to advocate its deletion. This issue, however, should be raised at AfD. The existing discussion contains no such justification. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, fan-created games are by nature nn. User:Zoe| 05:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Fuckin' Counterstrike. Who cares about it? Phil Sandifer 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Or maybe MarioWeen, a fangame that was actually featured on G4...
• Keep deleted, no real problem with the process aside from it being briefly discussed, and there are no guarantees that there's going to be more participation in a second AFD. Titoxd 05:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, the low-participation vote suggests that this is not a very reflective sample. No reason it shouldn't get another chance. Obviously the vote will now be a bit more publicized and should stand for awhile. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So an AfD should keep getting relisted until it reaches the results you want? User:Zoe| 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you'll be weighing in on College of Wooster Greeks below? Phil Sandifer 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but an AfD result (of any kind) should not be viewed as sacrosanct. Plenty of articles have been listed several times, with consensus for deletion finally established after several failed attempts. Is it your position that this should permanently bar the inclusion of such an article? I presume that it is, given the fact that you recently made the unilateral decision (without prior notice or discussion) to repeatedly delete an article that shared its name and theme — but not its text — with a different article that had been deleted several months earlier (after which point the subject attained clear notability). —Lifeisunfair 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but it should get relisted if there is substantial reason to believe that the results obtained were not or are no longer reflective of the views of the community (i.e., that the process failed). In this case, our bases for believing this are the small turnout of the vote and the new arguments presented by the nominator. The article was deleted because it was a fangame; the nominator here has now explained why, as such, it is encyclopedic. A new vote informed by these important arguments may provide a different result. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. Original AFD had to little participation to accurately determine concensus. The fact several people are asking for undeletion here shows this. Relisting and informing all original voters + the ones in this review is a good idea. A 2 delete, 1 keep can hardly be called binding. - Mgm| 14:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Three votes is hardly enough to form a broad consensus, but there is a preexisting broad consensus that fan-generated works are generally non-notable. There does not appear to be any substantiation that this is "the most notable fan game ever created" besides an absurdly low google count. Gamaliel 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Meh. undelete and relist. 3 votes isn't much of a consensus, no matter how the voting went. Give the proponents a chance to make their case that this is one of the few examples of a notable fan game. If they can't make such a case, I and many others I'm sure will vote to delete it this time. -R. fiend 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist per C. Parham and R. fiend. In some cases, I do think sparse participation can raise due process concerns. As an aside, I am impressed that the keep voter managed to sign the vote and create a userpage (although, of course, discounting the vote was within discretion.) Xoloz 07:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Bad reason for deletion, excellent article. --Tony Sidaway 07:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/Relist (Undelete). Looks like the correct call on Drini's part but now new and good reasons which establish notability which were not presented at the AFD have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ammar ibn Yasir

Very notable Sahaba, should not have been deleted in the first place. Ill work on it. --Striver 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Copyright violation — This was deleted as a copyright violation. You copied the article from http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Spa/7220/ammar.html and http://al-islam.org/restatement/71.htm. The article was deleted for this and no other reason. --Gareth Hughes 13:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copyvio. Feel free to write a new article in its place though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nayla bint Farasa

I want to elaborate on her, i need her article to be able to do that. --Striver 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (keep deleted) — although she is relatively notable, the article was deleted (afd) because it consisted of one sentence. Her role should be elaborated within the article of Uthman, and, if there is enough material, split off into a separate article. --Gareth Hughes 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• If Striver wants to work on it and make something more informative, I suggest that we undelete and userfy to his userspace where he can expand it at his leisure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why bother, if it is one sentence? Why not just quote it here? --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There were some stub templates, headings and external links which make that difficult. I have made a temporary undeletion and moved the article to his userspace. I think it is fairly common practise to make such undeletes for moves to userspace. It is now at User:Striver/Nayla bint Farasa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Valid AfD. While I suspect that this person might have some importance within Islam, the deleted article contained no information useful to someone not familiar with the faith explaining why she is considered notable. A new article that contains appropriate context information would be useful. --Allen3  15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sjakkale's action. If this gets expanded, the entire history will be retained, including whatever was done prior to deletion. - Mgm| 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

November 3

Matthew stecker

Moved to user page, when clearly expressed an assertion of significance. Should go through AFD if there is objection.

• Overturn speedy/list at AfD with a sigh. Pretty clear vanity, but there is the assertion of a "pivotal role", and enough information about the companies cited to determine veracity of claims made. If Mr. Stecker wants to make a case at AfD, let the case be made, though I personally presume it will fail. Xoloz 05:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep userfied - Why clog up AfD with a clear case of self-written biovanity? FCYTravis 15:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: anyone who userfies a page should always leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why. This sort of thing shouldn't need to be discussed at deletion review. As for the merits of the speedy, I endorse the speedy as a proper application of A7. I see no assertion of notability here. However, a message on the talk page saying, "this was already speedied once, we're going to try Afd now" should be (I hope) enough to keep it from being speedied again. Friday (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• If this was a move to userspace rather than a speedy, then it doesn't belong here. if anyone disagrees with the move they should restore it to article space. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was a move to userspace... I initially speedied it, then realized it was a likely case of autobiography, so I restored it and userfied it. FCYTravis 19:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnyard (2006 film)

Deleted under CSD G4, which reads "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy." This article survived AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barnyard (2006 film), and thus cannot fall under G4, regardless of speedies BEFORE the AFD.

• Overturn. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've fixed this as follows: I deleted the protected page (thus unprotecting it), I wrote a decent stub in place of the trashy garbage that AfD thought was good material, and have restored all the previous revisions, since all the speedies came after the AfD. Frankly, I don't know what AfD was thinking (and it strikes me that the closer possibly didn't look at the article when no-consensusing a two-thirds debate), and the speedies would have been valid A1 if not for the AfD. Anyway, we've now got a decent enough stub, and I will look 'unfavourably' upon the editor who reverts my stub (anons with an edit summary problem included). -Splash 16:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Someone can take it to AfD on crystal ball grounds if they like. The IMDb page hasn't been updated in a year. -Splash 16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is. While people who voted to keep the original crap need to have their heads checked, Splash's new stub should be pretty uncontroversial. If anyone really cares, they can feel free to AfD it again (the original result was borderline, I would have closed as delete), but it would probably just waste all our time. -R. fiend 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is a page for this already at Barnyard (film) (the proper title) - the (...2006 film)" was part of a spate of additions of movies listed as "...2006 film)". Part of Splash's contents should be merged with the Barnyard (film), and Barnyard (2006 film) should at least be redirected, if not re-deleted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Right. I will merge them. But there are no grounds whatsoever for deleting the resultant redirect! If nothing else it would be an obvious violation of the GFDL, as usual, unless someone copies histories onto talk pages. -Splash 21:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Turn over Splash and spank him. If he continues to perform in this manner, producing good articles and cleaning up messes with his clear decisive action, our whole carefully contructed bureacratic machine will collapse. Enough of this silly common sense stuff!
  brenneman 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and keep redirect, not that the redirect will get use but only because redirects are cheap per Jeffrey and Splash. Marskell 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one article, don't care which. It doesn't seem like "crystal ball" material since it's a major studio release that has a trailer already and must be pretty far along. It seems to me that if they somehow decide not to release it at this point it should still have an article just to document what happened. Note that it does look (judging by the trailer) like complete and total poo, but that's not a deletion criterion either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly McGee

Deleted under CSD A7, which reads, in full ""An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion of vanity articles."(emphasis mine) The entry in the deletion log reads "content was: 'Adam Levine's ex-girlfriend. She was in Maroon 5's This Love video. She dated Adam from early 2003 to late 2004. she is a former m" This appears to be an assertion of notability.

• Overturn and List on AFD Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC). I am trying not to bite the new admin, but can someone review the deletion log, please?
  • Please don't bite the person not biting the new admin. Properly deleted under g4 (though deletion under a7 would be impropper.)Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelly McGee. -Splash 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it alone per Splash. Friday (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• (After 2 edit conflicts) I was going to vote to overturn and relist, as per the nom, but since there was a previous AfD, Overturn and delete per G4. DES 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: as Splash noted, a valid CSD G4. Note that the deleting admin did cite CSD G4, but also seems to have misunderstood CSD A7. --- Charles Stewart 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an admin call. encephalon 21:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the primary reason was G4. Should not have done A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• The original article was probably never a deletion candidate--at most it should have been merged to her boyfriend's article or (perhaps) to the more famous Robbie Williams with whom she was associated. AfD screws up occasionally, and obviously did so here. Undelete all versions and revert to the version which was AfD'd. Needs references, of which there are many available including interviews with her boyfriend, articles about the rock video in which she made an appearance, etc. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, 'Why, he stumped his toe.'" --Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously. -R. fiend 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Riot Siren

Orig. AFD CSD A7, which this was closed under reads, in full "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion of vanity articles."(emphasis mine) A band is not a person.

• Relist or Overturn and Delete (not speedy) per consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is no means to speedy an article on a band, unless it's A1, or something, which this wasn't. It was a pretty terrible article, however, as the AfD demonstrates. I think the best way to repair the process is to undelete and resume the listing: it had only been up for a few hours and has only been down for a few hours. Unless anyone objects quickly, I think I will probably go ahead and do so, since this will minimise the out-of-processness. -Splash 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy and relist on AfD. I agree with Splash's view above. DES 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that the speedy wasn't properly justified by A7. However, consensus is already clear, so undeleting it seems downright silly. Also, the article is completely unverifiable. Why not just change the closure justification to "deleted via Afd" and leave it deleted? There will be no serious discussion of keeping this. Friday (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I said "unless", and Friday has offered an objection, but I decided to do this anyway. We frequently get slam-dunk straight-up deletes on AfD and there is no harm in letting them run for their time. Someone can close this on the dot of 5 days. It isn't really right to allow a debate to be left closed on the grounds of an improper speedy, particularly when the AfD nominator tacitly agrees that it isn't a speedy. -Splash 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• As long as this is deleted, I don't much care how. But really, this is such an obvious delete that common sense dictates it's speediable. A band that has yet to even practice? Hell, I'd speedy it as nonsense, as a band that hasn't practiced is not a band, but 4 guys who own instruments and have chosen a common name with which to refer to themselves. This also brings up a point, if 2 people are listed under the same puerile vanity article ("Jim and Joey Ploober are 2 awesome kids from Philly. They're brothers. They rock") is it not a valid A7 because it is not about a real person but about two real people? And is an article stating "Doctor Awesome and his Tadpoles of Descrepency is a band consisting of Mike, Jim, Sal, Arnold and Gooch. They haven't learned to play instruments yet, but they will, and they'll record the best music ever" not a speedy, but "Ernie Clapps is a singer/songwriter trying to make it big" is because the former is a band and the latter is a solo artist? I think we have to rely on common sense a bit more, and less on technicalities. -R. fiend 17:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this. I seldom agree with R. fiend on issues regarding deletion, but the argument that a band that hasn't even practiced is not actually a band is a truism. It's nonsense, just as a group claiming to be a corporation that hasn't actually incorporated would be nonsense as well. This isn't a valid A7, but it is nonsense, so speedy the thing already. Unfocused 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• What R. fiend said. Splitting an article about 2 awesome kids into 2 articles about one kid each would be a totally legitimate edit. Speedy deleting both of those 2 new articles would be totally legit also. But why jump through silly hoops just to be in compliance with the letter of the rules? Let's stop fetishizing process over product, and work on an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Splitting an article about 2 awesome kids into 2 articles about one kid each would be a totally legitimate edit. Speedy deleting both of those 2 new articles would be totally legit also. LoL. You certainly get points for ingenuity, Friday. encephalon 20:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess. :) I was trying to point out the utter absurdity of trying to go strictly by "the letter of the law" when such loopholes exist. I haven't been going out of my way to point this out, but many, many things could be speedy deleted "legitimately" by a doing a bit of creative editing first. I suppose there are those who would be appalled at such an idea, though, so I'm going to slink back into hiding now and pretend I never mentioned this. :) Friday (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• No need to do any slinking, Friday. :) You are very perceptive. The CSD were constructed to be narrowly applied, out of concern that a single pair of eyes cannot be trusted to determine an article's worth infallibly, every time. But to construct a narrowly defined set of criteria, it had to be, by necessity, 'artifical.' It works with good faith admins, and it can work better with helpings of common sense, but the surface efficiency of the process sometimes leads us to forget that the construct is not 'natural'; the issues you point out reveal its artificial nature. At the most fundamental level, what we're all trying to do is to maintain some standards for the encyclopedia. An article that is in accord with the fundamental standards (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Copyrights, WP:NOT) will not be lawfully deletable. An article that can cross over to speedy territory merely with a single edit is probably actually very poor. encephalon 21:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, if we could get every admin on the project to agree to use "tag & bag" on the speedies, so at least we know there were two sets of eyes looking at an article and that the article sat in the "visible to regular users but is about to be speedy deleted" category for a short little while, I think you'd find broad support of expanding the CSDs. Otherwise, just be as thoughtful and considerate of new users and honest contributors as you can, use inoffensive comments and edit summaries (NO "burn with fire", "nuke from orbit", "--cruft", et. al.), and accept disagreements gracefully, and no one important will ever be upset with you. (Unless of course you get overly involved with the politics of user blocking and free speech.) Unfocused 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Enough's enough. I was reluctant to do this at first because the article was brought here, but I've deleted it now. Not per a CSD, though, although several people offered criteria they believed were appropriate. I've simply deleted it per the Afd. 5 days is a typical case, not a requirement. Consensus was, shall we say, abundantly clear. However, if someone disagrees, please just go ahead and undelete it and let the Afd continue rather than trying to decide what to do here. Friday (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Modojo

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Modojo and DelLog
Modojo.com may not be as popular as your standards require, however, the forum community is quite large and has been around longer than modojo.com. The community has 2.6 million posts and 7300 members. More information can be found here: http://www.big-b oards.com/board/285/ plucas 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Relist unless given some compelling story. AfD was, umm, odd? Is there something to the history I'm not seeing, and how did T's deletion come about? - brenneman 05:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like somebody nominated it for AfD, and before (or shortly after) its listing was finished, it was A1 speedied. No bad-faith on Tox's part, obviously, just a time thing. AfD underway means contested speedy, which results in Undelete (possibly speedily) to let process run. Xoloz 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, that is exactly what happened. I saw the speedy tag, thought it was either patent nonsense or a newbie test (also speediable), so I sent it the way of the phonograph. The article was nowhere close to the state it is now. Titoxd 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• This discussion can now be closed. The only deletion to this article was a speedy-deletion as patent nonsense - a speedy-deletion which is not being contested. The current version of the article is not the same content and does not qualify for the "repost" speedy criterion. As Xoloz notes, a regular AFD on the new version has now been initiated and should be allowed to continue. Rossami (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Can someone help me understand what is going on with the undeletion log. It looks to me like the original speedy was applied too fast (From WP:CSD: Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it.): the article received 14 edits in 12 minutes, then the page was speedied 4 minutes later. But then there is another entry in the log is 30 mins later, whose effect I cannot fathom. --- Charles Stewart 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There was only one deletion...at 0354UTC 3 November 2005. -Splash 18:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So what was JJay's edit: adding a template to get it speedied? Is there a page that explains Special:Undelete? --- Charles Stewart 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. Anything that appears under 'Page history' is the editing history that would appear under the history tab if restored. Only those actions that appear in the 'Deletion log' section are to do with actual deletion/restoration by admins. -Splash 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, so JJay was overenthusiastic in adding the CSD notice. I'll pop a note on his/her talk page. Thanks for the explanation. --- Charles Stewart 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Tar and feather the admin that speedied it. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoxd (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Golgothian Sylex

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Golgothian Sylex
JIP deleted this article despite two "keep" votes and two "delete" votes. Both delete votes were from users that were obviously ignorant of and biased against Magic: The Gathering storylines, however, he ignored my vote because I'm interested in Magic. Huh? --Slobad 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Looks like a valid AfD. I count it was 3-to-1 to delete. Andrew Levine, Saberwyn, and Proto on the delete side, one valid user (Slobad) and a non-existant user (Vestdan) on the keep side. Since Vestdan doesn't exist, its vote isn't counted, leaving it 3-to-1. Unless I'm really missing something here, this looks like a simple clear-cut case without much irregularity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as Starblind explained so well. Besides, it's a magic card. -R. fiend 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete The article isn't about the card. --Slobad 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse the closer's decision (keep deleted). Slobad made his/her case during the initial discussion and failed to persuade the community. It does not appear to me that the closing admin ignored Slobad's opinion, only that he correctly ignored the sockpuppet. I see no process problems here. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure (Keep Deleted) per Rossami. Xoloz 06:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse, although I wouldn't oppose a history-only undeletion if Slobad desires to merge this content into a larger article on the MTG storyline that this relates to. android79 17:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• What android said. encephalon 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. We should not even be considering articles like this for deletion. Again, AfD got it wrong, as occasionally happens. At most merge with Magic: The Gathering or some other suitable article. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Here's the text of the article:

The Golgothian Sylex is an artifact from Magic: The Gathering. It is described as a large bowl of a copper-like metal, and there are curious glyphs on it, which roughly translate as "Use to wipe the world clean, to topple the empires, to start again".

During the war between Urza and Mishra, the Sylex was activated by Urza in the final battle on the island of Argoth. The resultant devastation not only destroyed the island and decimated the nearby continent of Terisiare, but altered the climate of Dominaria, sending the world into an ice age.

After this event, it was unknown whether the Sylex was destroyed after its use. Centuries later, during the Acclaim/Armada Comic series Wayfarer, the planeswalker Ravidel threatened to create a second blast of devastation over Corondor with the newly recovered Sylex. His plan however, was stopped by a young planeswalker named Jared Carthalion after using a two-spell combination.

The card itself, from the Antiquities expansion, is almost useless in the modern game. It is one of the cards known as "expansion hosers" that, when used, would remove all cards from it's expansion set from the game. Golgothian Sylex would only work on cards that came directly from the Antiquities expansion, and not reprints from other sets.

It could be merged with Terisiare or Urza. --Slobad 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

David Wong

This article should be undeleted because it is about a man was wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. Eventually he was exonerated. Genb2004 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and speedies. Actually, the second, copyvio, speedy was probably a hasty A8 since I don't think it comes from a commercial website. But now that it's down, we really shouldn't knowingly restore copyright infringing text to satisfy internal processes. It appears to be from , by the way. I wonder if such a source may be PD, although absent a release to that effect, it isn't. The third deletion was of an article reading only:

  "David Wong was wrongly convicted of a crime that he did not commit. Eventually he was exonerated and finally freed."

• which is fine for an nn-bio as it stands (it certainly doesn't assert that anything in the text is notable). The original debate was horribly puppeteered for reasons I can't fathom: the debate was an overwhelming delete, and clearly people are not persuaded by the claim of meeting WP:MUSIC. There is no new information offered here, the nominator would not have changed the debate and I do not think the encyclopedia is better with the article restored. -Splash 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hang on, I'm a little bit confused. There are two seperate David Wongs here. The first one, correctly deleted by AfD was just some random lawyer who plays the piano and, according to AfD has a serious case of egoism (there are some great quotes in the debate). On the other hand, the copyvio attempt, whilst a copyvio, was about someone completely seperate and reading the source (see link above), an original article on him should certianly be allowed to be written. The nn-bio was still ok, though, in a prima facie sense. So I think endorse closure, keep deleted, and unprotect is what we should be doing, and we can just set aside the specific request in this nomination. -Splash 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, and unprotect' per Splash's excellent work. Xoloz 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It sounds to me from Splash's summary that neither version of the article would merit CSD A7, as per Hall Monitor's comment on Special:Undelete/David_Wong. From Splash's description only CSD G4 or A8 might apply. --- Charles Stewart 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (edited after Charles Stewart 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I just speedy deleted David Wong (pianist), as, apparently, a recreation of one version of this article. User:Zoe| 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse. The first deletion was an in-process VfD. The second was a clear copyvio speedy: the article reads like a copy-and-paste of a newspaper article. The third was a clear non-notable-bio speedy: people are convicted and exonerated all the time. --Carnildo 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Splash's argument. *drew 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

November 2

New World (comic)

The Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/New_World_(comic) was closed without contacting anyone from the actual comic being depicted, Robert Maupin, the colorist or Scott Clements, the artist. The information they gave generally lacked in information and may of influenced others to delete it. The webcomic met the requirements to be listed on wikipedia set down by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Webcomics. The Talk:New_World_(comic) holds more information then they found. I feel that at the very least they should of contacted either me or the artist about the deletion. At the very least I would like to get a copy of the history changes so that I might keep the information on personal backup.

• Keep deleted. There is absolutely no reason why the creators of a comic need to be consulted when discussing the deletion of an article. -R. fiend 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Which of the proposed notability criteria does the comic meet? Phil Sandifer 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Misplaced Pages has absolutely no obligation to contact you. You should have come to Misplaced Pages, and I'm glad you now have. If you can offer the kind of information Snowspinner asks for, and that information was not in the previous article, and that information does meet the (still heavily debated) WP:COMIC suggestions, I imagine the debate can be re-run. The information on the talk page is barely coherent, however and really don't offer any trace of notability, WP:COMIC or no. 5000 hits per year is tiny. If new information is not forthcoming, endorse closure and keep deleted. -Splash 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising for the guideline, I mean. WP:COMIC is dead, long live WP:WEB. This forked proposed guideline has been, um, spooned? Calling all brave souls to come and weigh in to this exciting discussion. So that we can have less XfD/DR/RfD/Xyz over this sort of thing. - brenneman 01:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) - Valid Afd. The article was properly tagged for the entire length of the AfD discussion, allowing all interested parties to learn about the AfD. As for WP:COMIC, there is a reason why it has been changed into a redirect to WP:WEB. --Allen3  01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment An easy option would be to re-write this from scratch in a manner substantially different from the original. This wouldn't need to go to AfD, although I'm sure that someone would put it there regardless, so do try to make something that will survive. If your tastes ran to that sort of thing, you could even request a history only undeletion. Nice to have an admin run an "identical" checker over it to avoid a G4 (?) speedy, though. - brenneman 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Or even better, find some larger "chunk" that will clearly survive AfD and incorporate this material in there. I don't know, the production company, the artist collective, something. If there is any information there at all, it will only be served by being presented in a meaningful way, so go and write something. - brenneman 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Valid AfD with no keep votes at all, including the usually webcomic-inclusionist Snowspinner. The notion that WP has some obligation to notify a webcomic's staff when it gets deleted is downright silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if you look at my webcomics votes, they're a majority delete, I believe. [[User:
  • Okay I will accept this ruling fr now, I will got back and rewrite it fully then resubmit the article and see how that goes, we meat the minimum 100 comics, I think it has 150 or so, not including the fillers, and the comic has been around for several years. I would like to request a temporary history undeletion, so I can get the informatiuon that was already there. Robert Maupin 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks

The afd was clsoed early, apparently on the sole grounds that there had been a prior Afd with a no-consensus result. Overturn the closure and reopen the AfD listing. DES 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent example, made the more excellent by Snowspinner's closure remarks, of why the expansion of scope from VfU to DRV was the right thing to do. There is no reason to close the AfD early (though Snowspinner has a particular penchant for so doing), so overturn the closure, and relist. I'm tempted to do so speedily, since the closure is very obviously out-of-process. As ever, one should engage in a debate one disagrees with rather than tell those involved to shut up, which an early closure in this manner certainly does. -Splash 00:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open the existing AFD listing. The prior discussion was closed as a "no consensus" decision on 3 Oct 05. The prior discussion was certainly ambiguous enough to justify relisting after a reasonable time for edits and improvements. Few edits have been made in the month since the first decision was closed. The second decision was well on it's way to being a second "no consensus" decision when Snowspinner pre-emptively closed the discussion. His/her explanation for the early close is at variance with our traditional practice and was, in my opinion, out of order. As a community, we considered and rejected limits on renominations of articles. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "No consensus" means "Keep." And again - we cannot reasonably have limits on considering undeletion based on content while allowing endless nominations for deletion based on content. Phil Sandifer 01:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "No consensus" means there was no agreement on what to do. It means we do nothing. -Splash 01:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Keeping an article is not an action. No consensus means we do not delete. Articles that are not deleted are kept. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No consensus means no consensus. It means no agreement. Not all articles that are not-deleted are kept outright: many are merged, redirected, transwikied, userfied, categorified etc etc. I'm not among the group who refuses to see shades of grey. I thought it was these shades of grey that was one of the reasons for deferring so heavily to admin judgement in closing AfDs. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • In the absence of agreement to do anything unusual to an article - delete, merge, or otherwise - articles are kept. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Bullshit. -R. fiend 02:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Civil - Easy there mate. - brenneman 02:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • OK then - in the absence of a consensus to do something to an article, what do we do to it? Phil Sandifer 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • There are numerous options, including merging and/or redirecting. I know the Tony Sidaway school of thought on AfD states that unless about 90% of all voters agree on an exact course, the only thing that can possibly happen is the article remains untouched forever. Thats why we see various AfDs with zero keep votes kept as is because there is "no consensus" to do anything else. Most people see that as BS, however. -R. fiend 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • I am not sure what issues you have with Tony, but merging and redirecting are still doing "something" to an article. Absent any of those, articles are kept - they are not "no consensused" Phil Sandifer 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • We simply take no action since none was mandated by the debate. We call that "no consensus" because we acknowledge that there was no agreement. No agreement that it should be kept, nor deleted, nor merged nor anything. We don't pretend that a lack of agreement to do anything should be reported as a firm agreement to keep. Yes, of course the article will stand, but saying that the outcome of the debate was to keep, when the outcome of the debate was that people didn't reach agreement requires a considerable lack of subtlety. To later cite such a debate as saying "keep" when it said "we don't know" requires plain misunderstanding. -Splash 02:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • That's absurd - the default position is that we accept an editor's contributions. Only in extraordinary circumstances do we delete, remove, or otherwise eliminate someone's contributions. To say otherwise is to create the absurd notion that an article needs some special permission to exist. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Hmmm? Who mentioned deleting? I said do nothing. Anyone can redirect or merge without seeking permission, and there is no extraordinary circumstance required to do so. All I said was that "we don't agree" isn't "we think it should be kept". I don't know where you pulled deletion from. -Splash 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • And on R. fiend's point, he is of course correct that most of the debates without a single keep that get kept should have had something else done because working out that people didn't think it should stay isn't at all hard. We take the route that will likely satisfy a consensus of participators: if there is no such route available, and I agree that sometimes there isn't, then it's a no consensus as I described above. Of course, any editor remains free to reverse such an action at will. -Splash 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. The first AfD was borderline anyway (3 deletes, a keep and a merge). The second was less close, but closed early (and most of those votes seemed to rely more on the questionable keep from vote #1, rather than the merits of the article, which is generally a poor way of doing things). Give it a real vote this time, and judge it on its merits, rather than the ambiguous result of a previous AfD. -R. fiend 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So we're making endless reconsiderations of content on AfD, but not here on Deletion Review? That doesn't seem wrong to you? Phil Sandifer 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep closed - if deletion review is not about content, then AfD should not be abused to repeatedly redo deletion debates until people get the answer they want. You can't have this one both ways - either content-based reconsiderations are allowed or they're not. The answer, picked over serious objection, was "not." Phil Sandifer 01:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm confused. I thought AfD was to discuss content. I must have been mistaken. And it's very tiresome to suggest that DRV has nothing at all to do with content and such a statement really does require you to refuse to read the blurb properly. It says in simple language that, if you have new information, you should by all means offer it, and it can then be taken to AfD...where content is reviewed properly. I suppose DRV deals with a prima facie case of new-information-or-not and then passes the job onto AfD if it finds such a case. I don't see what's wrong with that. DRV also deals with the correctness of the close: particularly where there is no new information available and so that route is closed. In this case, your reasoning for the closure was obviously wrong, so it should be fixed. It's an unfortunate fact that many requests that come here are RandomTeenageBand thinks they're famous, can't come up with any new information why they are, and all that's left to examine is whether someone misread the debate. That doesn't sound like heresy to me. -Splash 01:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that content relisting requires "substantial new information." What new information was added to the new AfD? If none, it remains a grotesque imbalance whereby keeps can be redone until they get deleted, but deletes can't be undone. Phil Sandifer 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There wasn't much new information in the new AfD, and I'll speculate that DRV would have chosen to not to overturn a properly closed AfD (such as the first). By forcing the issue, you've managed to give a good reason to run the debate in full. However, I see little wrong with regularly holding the whole encyclopedia up to scrutiny. We need more scrutiny, not less. Of course deletes can be undone, at which point they usually return to AfD: which is where the previous no consensus ended up. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No - deletes can't be undone. The undeletion policy was EXPLICITLY changed to forclose undoing deletions without evidence of "new information." A specific decision was made to make undeleting articles harder. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist This clearly isn't about content. It's about an out-of process close by an admin who took part in the debate. Who says we can't have it both ways, anyhew? Process is about making tools that help to streamline behavior. We mostly talk about validity of the XfD because that's usually the substatative issue. However, as per the header up above, when our monkey brains tell us that there is some merit to discussing content, we do. It's neither a foolish conformity nor wild chaos. - brenneman 01:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep closed Can't see the point of listing perfectly good articles on AfD. We're running an encyclopedia, not an aunt sally stall. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but the point of the listing would seem to be what the nominator stated in the AfD. Clearly, Purplefeltangel thought it wasn't a perfectly good article. She is entitled to make her case, as those who agree with her. You are not in a position to tell them to shut up because you fear what they are saying. -Splash 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• You are joking about it being perfectly good, right? Did you read this mess? It's all unsourced POV, indeed the purpose of this article is only to present original research. Remove the unverifiable stuff, and you've got nothing left. Friday (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is unverifiable - the bulk of it was, from my understanding, researched by going to special collections at Wooster and doing the research there, where all of this is well-documented. Phil Sandifer 01:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It's already been undeleted. Would anyone be offended if the deletion review stopped now? To me, the obvious things to do is redirect this to College of Wooster. The Afd was improperly closed. But the article is junk, and there's no point fixing it since it's about a bunch of unverifiable organizations. Also, national fraternities have been considered significant, but individual chapters have not. I'd do the redirect now, but I don't want to inconvenience anyone who's looking at the Deletion review. Actually, nevermind that. I've been bold and redirected. The previous version, for anyone watching this, is here. If anyone disagrees with the redirect, please feel free to revert it, I won't be remotely offended. Friday (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it was never deleted. DES brought this here per the new scope of DRV to examine a disputed keep, as he says in his nomination. -Splash 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, brain fart. Of course you're right. Anyway, why bring this here? It was obviously an improper Afd closure, anyone can see that. So the closure can be reverted by anyone who feels the need, without review here, right? Friday (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The case may be made that you could relist it - although I will contest that bitterly. But there is ABSOLUTELY no justification for taking an article that survived one AfD and was well on its way to surviving a second (albeit invalid) one and deleting all of its content in the name of making it a redirect. Phil Sandifer 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

When you summarily deleted a large number of debates and faced considerable criticism for doing so, you innocently said you were being WP:BOLD, until you were reminded that WP:BOLD doesn't speak about administrative activities to any useful extent. But here you are saying that in the course of normal editing, someone should not be WP:BOLD. Which they can be, and are positively encouraged to be. -Splash 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are sort of two options. 1)Just do it, because, as you say, the closure was obviously improper or 2)check that this is ok, first. The main intent of the change to DRV was to provide a steam-release before the need for admins to delete-war as happens too often. Now that there's a community forum I'm hopeful people will refrain from fighting. Perhaps I took too many optimism pills, but there we are. In this case, I'd be inclined to take 1), much as I said in my first comment. -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ummm. A redirect is pretty clearly a "keep" on the k-d spectrum. - brenneman 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A merge is on the keep end - a "blank the article and replace it with a redirect" is in no way resembling a "keep." Phil Sandifer 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well in the "binary" AfD that I keep hearing so much about, such a redirect is a keep, in the sense that it's not a delete. People love to invoke the "binary" issue, but only when it suits them. -R. fiend 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to myself, I justified it by common sense. Do you object to all edits for some period of time, or just redirects? BTW, I find it bizarre that your edit summary accused me of redirecting against Afd consensus. It sure looked to me like you were trying to control the apparent "Afd consensus" with your closure. In fact, you seem to be way more worried about what you think the "rules" are than about consensus. Friday (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The previous AfD was to keep. I think that AfD should stand unless there's actually a pressing reason to redo the AfD. No such reason has been presented. If we're going to allowed the pernicious fighting of undeletion requests on the grounds of "no new content has been presented, you should have weighed in when you had the chance," which we do, it's absurd to allow AfDs to continue to go through without the same standards. Phil Sandifer 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What you think is fine. What if someone thinks different to you? You'll have to accept that that's fine too. They'd be less pernicious if you stopped being so, well... -Splash 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been two deletion debates now on an article that is probably one of the best-researched on Misplaced Pages. The guy who wrote this went to special collections and did the research necessary. Pernicious is treating his contributions like worthless detritus. Fighting not to treat hard-working contributors like we don't give a damn what they're doing isn't pernicious - it's maintaining central principles of respect that are integral to the project. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• (I'm going to be talking about content, or are we not doing that now?) Well, really, have a look at the article. Everyone should do the thing that they are best at, and this person's research may by orders of magnitude better than mine, but this article is average. Rather than fighting the deletion battle every so often in whatever the venue of choice is, try and get some people together and make this into brilliant prose. Because, if we are very frank, well written articles about hokum rarely make their way to AfD, but badly written articles about perhaps worthy subjects often find themselves nominated. Twice. - brenneman 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Except that that's a foolish effort - if I focus on improving an article during the five days of a deletion debate, I'm likely to see my effort get deleted. If I focus it on keeping the article, I can fix it at my leisure. Phil Sandifer 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment You know it's as if we were discussing two completely different articles. One article is the article that I can see that gives detailed information that is sourced and verifiable. The other article is this mythical "junk" that is apparently unverifiable. It's ridiculous, how can we be talking about deleting an article where good editors can't even agree amongst ourselves that it's unverifiable junk? Does everything ever written in Misplaced Pages have to be derived from a ten minute google search? --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Overturn and relist Clearly, this is contentious. These issues are best confronted at AfD, as debate at that forum removes a degree of abstraction from the review function performed here. Clearly, there are grounds for doing so (defect of process), and good reason besides (consensus is better achieved than assumed.) Xoloz 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Comment' - I note that the debate was 4 keep, 2 merge, 4 delete - there is no plausible way that the article would have made it to the necessary 14 additional delete votes to generate a consensus to delete. In light of what was clearly a strong forming consensus to not delete, I think it is a tremendous slap in the face to the people who have worked on this article to put it in what amounts to a third attempt to delete the content. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are correct, why did you not wait for the normal AfD period to end? I agree with comments made above that if an AfD reaches no consensus, we do not deleted or take any other action based on the AfD -- the article stays as it is and normal editing continues. But the point is that this AfD did not reach any valid result, because it was closed early for no obvious reason. User:Snowspinner belives that it was headed for a "no-consensus" result, and such a result was a not unlikely sequel to the AfD up to the point that it was closed. Therefre the Afd should be reopened. A final consensus to delete is possible, if perhaps not likely. A number of people obviously thought this worth deleting, albiet rather less than 2/3rds of those who expressed a view on the AfD. A clear keep consensu is also possibel, and would be a much stronger argumet agaisnt a future AfD nomination. DES 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Several people above asked why i brought this here. I did so as an improper close of an Afd -- in effect a speedy keep without clear consensus. I arguably could have unilaterally re-opened the AfD, but I would prefer not to simply override another admin's closing decision in that way. If the consensus where was that reopenign the AfD was a poor idea, I would take note and the matter would rest there. If there is agreement here to re-open, then we will see what further AfD commetns there are, and a proper close will occur in due time. I saw that seemingly sensible argumetns were beign made on both sides of teh AfD -- I do not yet have an opnion about the article per se, that is, how I would vote on the reopened AfD. DES 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First, we are not "voting". The count of opinions illuminates but does not automatically decide the issue. But even if we were strictly vote-counting, I feel that I have to comment on the numbers above. 4 keep and 2 merge could be outweighed by 12 deletes - only 8 more than had already commented, not 14 more. If you had allowed the discussion to run its course, the decision would very likely have again resulted in a "no consensus" decision. That is not the same as a clear consensus to "keep". Instead, it is a statement that the community is willing to give the article the benefit of doubt for a while but reserves the right to revisit the decision. Let the process work and in the meantime fix the article instead of arguing about it here. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So you're just ignoring the two merge votes in your count? Phil Sandifer 15:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No. 4 keep + 2 merge = 6. (x-6)/x = 66% solves to x = 18 and (x-6) = 12.

Comment - In response to the presumption that "no consensus" means something other than keep... do you realize the implications of this? It codifies the idea that articles need special permission to exist. It codifies a widespread assumption of bad faith, whereby every article is in an ambiguous position until it's been codified as "kept." I cannot express how deeply awful this entire idea is, and how breathtakingly poisonous it is. Phil Sandifer 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Wiki may well collapse and cease to exist as a result. Or people may stop writing articles. Or everything might get deleted. Or, you could just calm down a little teensy bit and realise that "no consensus" is the outcome of the debate, and not a new status of article. It says, as I am repetitiously having to repeat, that the participants in the debate reached no agreement on what should be done. That's all. -Splash 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, no article here is ever completely safe. No one seriously disputes that our Lord Jimbo can do anything He wants. So, if one is going to have a breakdown over the fact that there is an infinestimally tiny probability any article may die at any time, one should have had that breakdown on Misplaced Pages, day one. Xoloz 05:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete/Overturn (or whatever the terminology du jour is) and relist on AfD. All this how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about what "no consensus" means might be fascinating to y'all, but the bottom line is that the AfD process, once started, ought to finish absent any really clear-cut reason for shutting it down early. And the fact that y'all are arguing about it means it ain't. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, it wasn't a keep result, it was a no consensus result, which means that the article should not be given the relisting protection given to kept articles. No consensus means that we didn't decide what to do, but we are going to have to decide eventually. Titoxd 19:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. I'm taken aback by Phil's patently out-of-process closure. Not only was the prematurity inappropriate, but he actually participated in the debate (voting to keep the article)! That's a clear conflict of interest, and the consensus to overturn the decision is equally clear. I'm tempted to do so myself, but there's no harm in allowing this discussion to run its course. —Lifeisunfair 20:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. encephalon 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) NB. I gather that there has been some discussion over whether it is better to relist the inappropriately closed AFD or begin anew with a fresh one. I would approach this question by considering that the users who participated in the AFD that was inappropriately closed have every right to have their opinions counted; for them to be discarded, before even being properly considered, would be unfair. This DRV discussion may also be useful to any new participants. I therefore urge that the wrongly closed AFD be re-opened with a good explanatory note from the editor who relists, linking this discussion as well (via a diff, it would gone by the time the AFD is put up). As to length of time, an AFD which has been off the logs for at least 5 days may well deserve the proper 5 days; I see little point in relisting if we were going to pull it in a day or two. encephalon 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the above plan. —Lifeisunfair 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Stacy Armstrong

I was sifting through old AFD/VFD archives and came across Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Armstrong. The debate was closed by User:AllyUnion as a no consensus keep, then unilaterally overturned by another administrator. Even though vote count shouldn't be everything when closing debates, my count puts this at 6d/4k. AllyUnion's close was within reasonable bounds and should not have been overturned. I think that the rule before VFU/DRV was expanded to include disputed keeps, was that closed debates stay closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting case... I agree that closures shouldn't be unilaterally overturned (except by the original closer), but this is clearly a case in dispute, so it shouldn't be kept outright either. Overturn (Undelete) and relist at AfD. Xoloz 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio from IMDb in all revisions (apart from the external links etc). So leave this version deleted, but allow recreation, if we have authority to do that here. -Splash 10:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It may not have been the most orthodox action, but AllyUnion at the time wasn't counting nominator's votes, as he/she should have. 6/3 (the actual result when sockpuppet Vagrant is discounted) is a delete in most people's books, and no one gave a compelling reason to keep an actress who has never been in a real movie. The original article was the creation of a few users who have a long history of using Misplaced Pages to promote who I have to assume are their friends. Besides, as Splash pointed out, it was a copyvio anyway. -R. fiend 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: What Splash says. --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent example of why we needed this page to be a full Deletion Review, not merely VfU. The closure and overturn occurred back in February - before this process was in place. Under normal conditions, I would endorse the original closer's decision as within the range of discretion. The second admin is more correct about the vote-count but some of the comments (on both sides) are weak or non-existent and might well deserve less weight. Looking at the article and at the IMDB site, I question Splash's finding that this is a copyvio. In the original deletion discussion, Xezbeth said on 31 Jan 05 that "This is the first person i've seen who has a blank imdb page." I can't help but wonder if IMDB is drawing their data from us. No vote yet... Rossami (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You have convinced me. Delete as a copyvio regardless of the prior debate. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Certainly if the IMDb article came first, this one's a copyvio (the fact that the lines are in a different order is moot: the overwhelming majority of the article is verbatim), but if we got the article first it may or may not be depending on who wrote the IMDb page. The fact that the lines in the IMDb article have been re-ordered in the first revision here into a better order, and the sentences written to start with "She has..." rather than just "Has..." makes me think the IMDb article is the original. Otherwise, the slightly better grammar would surely have been copy-pasted into IMDb? Anybody know how to work out when an IMDb page was made? -Splash 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If IMDB host more of our content than they can under fair use and do so without attribution then they are in violation of copyright law. How do we notify them? --- Charles Stewart 16:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO, it is unlikely that IMDb are hosting out content, as I said above. We are (or were) more likely to be hosting theirs. If, hypothetically, IMDb are hosting our content, then that may be OK if each of the authors has consented to this: although the material is released by Misplaced Pages under the GFDL, authors retain original copyright on their work. Now that is unlikely, of course, but still. Anyway: to reiterate, I am sceptical that IMDb copied us, despite the comment in the VfD. -Splash 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The GFDL is a "share-alike"/viral license. They cannot just incorporate WP material without syndicating what they incorporate it into. It looks to me that someone or other is violating someone's copyright. --- Charles Stewart 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Errr....that's what I just said! But anyway, I was making the technical point that each of the authors could have chosen to license their content to IMDb under some other license, since they each retain the rights to their work. They could have all got together and reached some agreement without needing to reach for WP. More likely, of course, is that if the IMDb article comes from ours then it is a copy-paste and therefore GFDL'd and they would need to do something about it. -Splash 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment We appear to have an article about her at Stacy Kernweis (her married name, judging from imdb), which is linked as "Stacy Armstrong" from Democrazy (film). I'm not sure if the current Kernweis article is a copyvio of the imdb page (it's not a direct copy, certainly.) Also, out of interest, R. fiend, what makes you say that Vagrant was/is a sockpuppet? -- AJR | Talk 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh, that's interesting. If we want to play with process, then Stacy Kernweis is a speedy as substantially identical recreation of deleted content. But we're not yet sure if that deletion was in process or not, and also a copyvio would never prevent recreation. However, Stacy Kernweis is a highly derivative work, very clearly based on the IMDb article. It's probably a copyvio since there is almost no creativity required to go from the IMDb article to ours. It is also very very similar to the deleted article, in fact only different in probably 10 words. If the Kernweis article is a copyvio, then the Armstrong article certainly is. -Splash 17:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - why do we defer so unerringly to administrator discretion when they close as delete, but allow unilateral overturnings on keeps? Phil Sandifer 17:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't. That's why it comes here for review. - Tεxτurε 18:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was really responding to some of the comments above. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Still, they do both refer to the situation as it used to be, when keeps could not be discussed and so any overturnings were necessarily unilateral and then had to be fought over somewhere once deleted. Usually that fight was in the deletion log, but occasionally here. Now, of course, a disputed keep result should be brought here so that unilateral overturning of any kind should be unneeded. Better, no? -Splash 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recreate as per original close. 6-3? Don't make me laugh. Relist if desired. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is slightly unusual. Discussions now over the appropriateness of the second admin's action are probably futile; for all we know he may have messaged AlleyUnion over the error and obtained his agreement with the deletion. The important issues before us concern the article's status. It is not wise to restore a copyright violation; no matter where editors find themselves on the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum for a given article, most editors have enough respect for this articlespace policy that suggestions to restore a copyvio are generally met with appropriate opposition. Rossami correctly points out the comment on the AFD attesting to a blank IMDB page; however, I am very sceptical that the current IMDB page is derived from WP, because:

1. I am unable to see how IMDB could have copied our page if they didn't have one in January, and ours was deleted shortly after.
2. It is exceedingly unlikely for IMDB to be collecting information on its entries from stubs on an open wiki; organizations like that normally have paid editors, copyeditors, journalists etc to obtain and present their data.
3. A WP stub which is almost word-for-word similar to another site, and provides an external link referencing that very site as the source of its information, is a good indicator that plagiarism has occured.

So please don't restore the copyvio. This is not in any way prejudicial to a lawful article on this person that meets Misplaced Pages's articlespace policies. encephalon 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said. However, one should note that IMDb, though not a wiki, does take submissions from the public (it doesn't shy away from promoting people, as we do). Read the "Caveat emptor" section in The Internet Movie Database article. The assertion that they "have paid editors, copyeditors, journalists etc to obtain and present their data" does not mean they don't rely on submissions as well. That, I believe, is why you can often find "uncredited" roles listed for minor actors (ie extras). It also means that the same individual could have submitted the same material to both sites independently, though barring any evidence of this, we cannot assume it is the case. -R. fiend 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• But of course, you're right. I remember now seeing invites to submit profiles on the site. Yes, that rather complicates matters. An author who writes text of their own and clicks the submit button on WP automatically releases it under GFDL. IMDB holds a more restrictive copyright, of course; however, I wonder if they have developed a policy for this kind of thing. But you're correct about what to do, irrespective of what their policy might be. If we find identical text we'd have to treat it as a copyvio on our end. encephalon 06:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

November 1

Zak Koretz (magician)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zak Koretz (magician) see also

I would like this article to be undeleted because if you call it a shameless self promotion, what do you call all of the listings written here... List of magicians
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.106 (talk • contribs)

• Rebuttal, actually this article is about a member of the Magic Castle, just like many of the magicians on that list, while I am not trying to equate myself to Houdini...I do consider myself skilled enough to be one of a short list of people under 21 who have passed the rigerous auditions to be admitted as a junior member of the magic castle (the current world champion magician Jason Latimer is a former junior member who graduated from the program several years ago). Additionally, I do perform at the magic castle and if you are in town, feel free to stop by on a Sunday and see my show. And as for Xoloz...A lot of the "magicians you have heard of" are DEAD so I don't think they would mind. Also, the Junior program is highly respected among magicians, and produces many of the newer and future greats of magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.141.106 (talk • contribs)

• I'd call list of magicians (which includes Houdini, Blackstone, Penn and Teller, David Blaine, James Randi, et al.) a list of people I've heard of, for the most part. If you think there is a non-notable magician there, nominate him for deletion. If you think Houdini is a non-notable magician, quit doing magic. As for the article, Endorse closer (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no defect of process or new information presented, nomination of poor quality (and possibly insulting to very famous magicians). Xoloz 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strangely enough, young friend nominator, 4 of the 6 people to whom I directly referred are still alive and performing. :) Study more magic. Xoloz 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly. The Afd was properly done. The article is unsourced and appears to be about some kid who does magic, which isn't remotely comparable to articles on verifiably famous magicians. Friday (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse, since I closed it, but Friday said it best: it's not even in the same league as Houdini et al. Titoxd 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Without any new information presnted here, and no suggestion that the nominator might have swung the debate and no error in process and no interest in having the article, there is no reason to reverse or re-run the AfD. I call List of magicians a navigational tool, by the way. Once you've had some media attention and acquired some outright notability, you can always try rewriting the article: if you have become genuinely notable, it won't be speedy deleted because it will include lots of new information not currently available. -Splash 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing new here. and as for if you call it a shameless self promotion, what do you call all of the listings written here... List of magicians, I'd say that unless you're suggesting that the late Harry Houdini, the late Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin, and the not-late Ricky Jay have been adding themselves to Misplaced Pages to bolster their limited public awareness, I'd call it a complete non-sequitor. --Calton | Talk 08:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: DRV request provides no grounds for undeletion. --- Charles Stewart 14:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Noteworthy magician's perform outside their magic club and get press attention (at the very least by magic magazines). - Mgm| 15:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. *drew 06:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your mom

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Your mom

I'd like this article to be considered for undeletion. I think there was a lack of information about the distinction between the slang "your mom" (a one-time retort) and the dozens, a back-and-forth contest that happens to often employ "yo momma is..." or "your mom's so..." phrases. Modern usages of "Your mom" are even further from the dozens in that they are not meant to be insulting, but almost as a nonsensical inside joke, or even as a parody on those who do use it as an insult. Example: "I just created a new Misplaced Pages page." "Your mom just created a new Misplaced Pages page!". An example of what the undeleted page might look like can be found here. Thanks to all who take the time to vote, even if this is a rather silly subject. Turnstep 01:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, as the people involved in the AfD (including myself!) clearly didn't realize the distinction. The article is currently a redirect, though it has bounced back and forth between that and something attempting to address the fact that "your mom" is something entirely separate. In any event, the redirect is inappropriate, because yo momma ≠ your mom when it comes to humor. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting... The page history shows signs of lost versions. It records a first deletion date that is 14 days before the first edit. I suspect there may have been some page-moves which are complicating our ability to trace the history. Looking at the different versions, I want to argue that this article should be deleted because all the non-vandalized and non-redirect versions I found were mere dictionary definitions, that is, they were discussions of the meaning, usage and origins of a word or phrase. Specifically, they were detailed discussions of the usage of the phrase. That kind of content is more lexical than encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Oddly, however, the option to transwiki the article to Wiktionary was never discussed. Instead, the overwhelming consensus was to redirect. I see no process problems with that decision. Reversing the redirect decision is a matter to be discussed on the respective Talk pages, not here. The redirect decision was carried out on 30 Oct at 19:09. Two minutes later, Brian0918 deleted the article without explanation. It was subsequently re-created and currently stands as a redirect (again). I can find no justification for the deletion. The article's current content is identical to the version that was deleted. Unless Brian can present a compelling justification for the deletion, I must conclude that the deletion was out-of-process. In the interim, I am going to carry out a history-only undeletion on the article. Any further discussion about whether this should remain a redirect or an independent article should be carried out on the Talk page. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rossami. I have started the relevant discussion. If there are no objections soon, I'll assume it is safe to remove the redirect. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for a disambig. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

October 31

List of song titles phrased as questions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions

I do not believe I have to give a proper reason for this undeletion wish. Rather, I'd ask those who deleted the list to explain to me how they define "unmaintainable". Does it mean that we delete an article when people work on it and it gets longer? <KF> 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision (keep deleted). Yes, you do need to provide a reason why you want this list undeleted. The list got a fair amount of discussion and pretty much everyone agreed that the criteria for inclusion in the list are too broad, hence it is unmaintainable. Titoxd 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). The discussion was robust and the community decision was clear. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted. We had this already (bottom half), and it was firmly kept deleted. No reason to overturn both an afd, and a previous VfU. Sometimes, articles get deleted. -Splash 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• What exactly are the "criteria for inclusion" apart from a question mark at the end of a song title? And again: What is the meaning of "unmaintainable"? Keeping on claiming that the list is/was "unmaintainable" does not answer this question. And if asked to give a reason for keeping the list, the most obvious one is that it cannot be found anywhere else—certainly not in a printed encyclopaedia, but probably nowhere in the Internet either. <KF> 02:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons for deletion are given in the AfD debate linked to above. That's why we run AfD debates and why DRV is not usually a place to repeat them. -Splash 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No reason(s) given there except that one word: "unmaintainable". Well, a classic case of point of no return it seems. Thank God there are Misplaced Pages mirrors all over the place. <KF> 03:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unmaintainable means that the list theoretically could reach an infinite length. If that is the case, then it means that it is just grouping things that don't belong together, which makes it an indiscriminate collection of facts. We like our lists short and sweet (as in List of spacecraft), not a hedgepodge of random stuff piled together. Titoxd 03:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the explanation. I've already given up, so rather than asking you to define "we" I'd like to say good night now. <KF> 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
          • We = Wikipedians, what we have decided through consensus and has been written down in policy as a result (relevant policy: WP:NOT). Titoxd 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Also Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. Uncle G 11:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Deleted VfU heard this previously. No new evidence. List still bad idea. Xoloz 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no process violations alleged, clear consensus to delte, no new issues raised here. DES 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. --Briangotts (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. It's not just that you think it should have been kept, right?-Splash 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep deleted). In addition to good reasons given by others, I strongly believe a proper reason should have to be given for the undeletion wish. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. encephalon 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Faced with such an overwhelming deletionist majority I don't see any way for me to continue arguing in favour of this list let alone wishing for its undeletion. If you want to know the truth, I didn't give a "proper reason" for undeletion at first because I thought it had to be either a mistake or a (rather pointless) practical joke that the list had been deleted. However, I did provide an argument later on, after I had realized that people were serious about this. My point is that nowhere on the Internet—except in Misplaced Pages mirror sites—and nowhere else (in printed form) will you find such a list. Its usefulness should be rated by (past, present, and future) users rather than a handful of current administrators. The question how valid the pseudo-democratic procedure is which almost all contributors to this debate are using as counterarguments does not belong here but should, as I see it, be discussed somewhere else.
  • I have retrieved this list as well as the other one ("...more than twenty times...") for my personal use. However, I was only able to do so in unwikified form. Would it be okay if I undeleted them, copied them onto my hard disc and immediately deleted them again? Or is there some other way I could achieve the same result? <KF> 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Technically, you can't undelete them, since you're an admin, but if people don't object, I'll userfy it to a page in your User space (like User:KF/List or similar) so you can use it there. I don't object to that. Titoxd 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • KF is an admin. -Splash 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Then that means I went over WP:LA really quickly. I apologize. Titoxd 05:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. <KF> 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

Ditto. Ordinary deletionism is bad enough, but disappointing all those contributors who have made a total of 514 (!) edits to this article is more than I can stomach. You can't be serious. I just can't believe that List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks is allowed to survive while this article has to go. Who gives a damn about Clear Channel? What is Clear Channel? <KF> 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer decision (Keep Deleted). the AFD is quite clear, the list is not useful, and the list itself violates WP:NOT. Listcruft. Titoxd 01:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Rossami (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Disappointment is not on the list of reasons for not deleting an article! I could spend hours writing a wonderful article about my wonderfully non-notable company and would have to live with it being deleted. If you don't like the other article then, instead of choosing the "drive Misplaced Pages to the standard of the worst article", nominate it for deletion. Article's stand or fall usually on their own merits, not on the (dis-)merits of other articles. There's no reason to suppose the nominator here could have swung the pretty-near unanimous deletion debate, and certainly no new information is presented, apart from wishing, and I don't think the encyclopedia is better with it restored. -Splash 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer (keep deleted). No defect of process or new information given. I voted against this at AfD as well, and still find it to be listcruft, and distressingly random in its criterion of interest. Xoloz 16:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision Valid AfD, with clear consensus. Quite in accord with WP:NOT and other relevant policy. No new issues presented here, and no process violations. Keep this deleted, and please do not try to recreate this. DES 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• relist. --Briangotts (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. -Splash 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer (keep deleted). No problem with the AfD is mentioned. Amusing list, but the "rough consensus" was crystal clear, and no fresh information has been presented that would suggest that a new AfD would have a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. encephalon 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. As for who Clear Channel is, they're the company that runs most of the radio stations in the United States. They've got a great deal of influence about what does or does not get airtime. --Carnildo 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep delete - hell no --Doc (?) 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Hell, some of those 514 edits are mine, and I can't say I'm terribly disappointed with the results (if it weren't for the article, I probably never would have counted the number of times Edward Tudor-Pole says "Who Killed Bambi", but that's hardly important). It was a vaguely interesting list to some, but not exactly encyclopedic. If anyone wants it temporarily undeleted for use outside of Misplaced Pages, I'd be open to that, however. -R. fiend 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid Afd. *drew 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ticalcs and Vdesign

Please note that there ARE communities (such as http://www.ticalc.org/) that deal with TI Calculators. I don't see why an article like that should be deleted.

Additionally, the aforementioned articles undertook a speedy deletion without having proper cause. "Not notable" is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion!

The only way that such a deletion can be allowed is if it is discussed first.

• Keep deleted Ticalcs, undelete and list Vdesign. Ticalcs, in the state it was deleted, stands no chance to be kept in AFD, and the content in the article is insufficient to the degree it almost fits CSD A1. Feel free to make a better article if you want, but it might be listed in AFD at any moment. As for Vdesign, it is in much better shape, so a run through AFD might be appropriate; that said, I cannot guarantee they won't be deleted. Titoxd 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn Speedy Deletion, list at AfD on both "Not notable" is, indeed, no reason for a speedy. I don't know the state of these, but since one was clearly a process-error, I say that both should have a shot at AfD, wherein each might come to the attention of many knowledgeable eyes. Xoloz 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete both and list on AFD if desired. Out-of-process speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• A sample from the start of Ticalcs is:

  Ticalcs is a budding TI Calculator Forum that is located at the URL (link)

  It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members. The most active are: Vladik, Pure, bfr, bcherry, anykey, and Simon.

  What Features Does It Have?

  Very Good Community

  Frequent updates

  Good Staff

• It hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hades if restored, so keep Ticalcs deleted and the nominator can simply write a proper article — the current version is no more than crufty advertising. The other one is little more than advertising, but I suppose it ought to be undelete Vdesign and immediately AfD, where that one doesn't have a lot of hope, either. You'll want to remove the smilies and parenthetical in-jokes if it's restored. In both cases I would strongly advise the nominator to just go and write decent articles rather than seek restoration of these two very poor ones. -Splash 09:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some mention of the highly procedural nature of VfU might be in order. Voters there are, or should be, interested only in the validity of the deletion process, not the content." — Splash 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. And I have said in several places that speedies are more about content than process since the content never got debated. I can't be bothered finding the diffs; you can believe me or not. Hence I provided the content, and you continue to debate process. Oops! -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, speedy deletion reviews must focus upon content, because that's how we determine whether the correct process was followed. Contrary to your claim above, my vote is based upon the article's content (which I thank you for posting in its entirety). Which speedy deletion criterion do you believe applies? If the answer is "none," what special circumstance warranted the application of WP:IAR? —Lifeisunfair 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I explained really quite clearly that my reason for keeping it deleted is that the restoration is a purely bureaucratic exercise and a thorough waste of time, rather than a necessarily valid speedy. The basis in CSD policy is thin, but there's easily an arguable case for A1 and also as G3 (WP:VAND says that spam is vandalism and I'm pretty easy on the fact that the article is spam: nearly every word is promotional.) I don't feel any need to resort to IAR: he who does so pretty much loses the debate by so doing. -Splash 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn both and lsit on AfD. Out of process deletion. Mind you, Ticalcs is IMO unlikley to pass AfD unless it is drastically rewritten during the process, and significant indications of notability are provided. Vdesign will probably need a rewrite to survive AfD also, but "non-notable" is just not an acceptable reason to speedy delete. DES 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete these improper speedies. List on AfD only if you feel that they should be listed. Listing on AfD following undeletion isn't mandatory; as always, it's up to anyone who looks at an article to decide if they want to list it there. That includes admins who undelete articles. Unfocused 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Under the current procedures, relisting is automatic unless a 3/4ths supermajority opts to overturn the decision, and opts not to relist. But in this case I am specifically opting for a relisting. DES 17:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If nothing else, it is a simple courtesy to list undeleted on articles, especially speedies, on AfD since at least one person thought they should be deleted, and that's all an AfD nomination takes. Not always necessary if the article was plainly good and mistakenly speedied, but in such rock-bottom cases as these it doens't seem in the least unreasonable. -Splash 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on Afd Every article that does not obviously fall under the speedy criteria deserves an AfD discussion before deletion. Not a snowball's chance type arguments are inappropriate for admins to make about articles whose deletion has not been openly discussed. *I* can't comment without seeing the article, and I don't think replicating choice excerpts here on DRV counts as seeing it (no edit history, etc.). --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I will make what comments I like on the article, thank you very much. And the excerpts aren't 'choice', they are the first however many lines of the article. Here's the whole thing, in case you think I'm trying to bias things by being an evil, deletionist, inappropriate admin — there is only this single edit in the history (a fact you don't need an inappropriate admin to check for yourself):

    What Is It?

    Ticalcs is a budding TI Calculator Forum that is located at the URL http://ticalcs.proboards41.com .

    It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members. The most active are: Vladik, Pure, bfr, bcherry, anykey, and Simon.

    What Features Does It Have?

    * Very Good Community

    * Frequent updates

    * Good Staff

    * Coding Support

    * Good Links

    * And Much More...

    So undeleting it is a purely bureaucratic exercise with zero value. Any article that survived AfD would bear no relation to this. -Splash 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please calm down, Splash. Charles criticized your argument. He did not refer to you as "inappropriate" or anything remotely resembling or implying "evil" or "deletionist."

Mmmhmm. I must be imagining the word "inappropriate" preceding the word "make" on my screen, then. -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this is a "purely bureaucratic exercise with zero value." More is at stake here than these specific articles, and I see a great deal of value in preventing the establishment of a dangerous precedent. —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• The comment wasn't directed just at what Splash said: Titoxd also made the snowball-type-remark stands no chance before. I don't like these sorts of arguments, even though I can sympathise with the process-minimisng reasoning that causes them, since they are remarks whose ground cannot be properly grasped by non-admins. The selectivity of the exceprting wasn't my principal beef with Splash's comment, more important was the lack of edit history. --- Charles Stewart 18:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: Thanks for the tip about Special:Undelete - I had thought the page showed only admin edits to the page. I retract my compliant about not seeing edit history --- Charles Stewart 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD. Obviously improper speedies, and should be discussed in AfD though I expect them to be voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete both and list at AfD. It appears as though Ticalcs has little chance of surviving an AfD debate, but I see absolutely no justification for ignoring all rules by sidestepping the correct process. To uphold this decision would encourage admins to unilaterally delete non-CSD-applicable articles without discussion. I can think of no better method of dissuading new contributors from continuing to participate in the project. —Lifeisunfair 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued: those who think the sky may well fall if leave this deleted have expended many words telling us all so. They could hav written 20 stubs in that time. Why didn't anyone actaully write an article on this? Is it because they know it'd be a waste of their time? I couldn't really care less if these masterpieces are restored or not, because I am pretty sure they will be gone again five days later. Sorry, I must be the only one round here making such inappropriate comments. At least we move a step closer to the quality organ that is everything2.com in the meantime. -Splash 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Those of us who are arguing that the article should be undeleted share the same goal that motivates you: to create and maintain the best possible encyclopedia. Obviously, we have different opinions of how this can be accomplished, but that doesn't mean that we can't be respectful of one another's viewpoints. Do you honestly believe that the above mockery is somehow constructive? —Lifeisunfair 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and I'm sorry, mockery is not constructive. The mockery-free version is: I do not think that restoring either of these articles advances the Project a single bit, and in fact it retards the project, by offering the possibility that someone may come across the articles and, laughing in justifiable scorn, never return to Misplaced Pages. How can you rely on a reference source that is so without standards as to include the above article? So it'll be on AfD (though Unfocused appears to think that unnecessary), but that doesn't really cut it: we'd be better off without the article, and nearly everybody here appears to agree....at the same time as they say we should restore it. -Splash 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, actually, in the opinion of some administrators (myself included) Ticalcs fits within CSD A1. Undeleting it in its current state would result in a butchering of the article, maybe a few speedy requests in the AFD itself, and we would all get back to the same point, a deleted article. Yes, the article could be rewritten while in AFD, but that can happen now too, and I even went so far as to recommend that. Misplaced Pages does not have to be a bureaucracy. Titoxd 03:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that CSD A1 applies, and I also don't believe that it's a good idea to send the message that it's okay for admins to delete articles on the basis of non-notability, or that it's appropriate to treat a deletion review as a retroactive AfD debate (thereby excluding readers from the process). —Lifeisunfair 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is ok for admins to unilaterally go and delete articles on basis of non-notability, and I even got into Tony Sidaway's RFC to defend process. However, in this case, there's no precedent being set (or it shouldn't be read as a precedent anyway), my opinion is that Ticalcs was a valid speedy for not having enough context. Titoxd 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are admins who could possibly think that an article candidate that contains a URL and claims to noteworthiness (It is almost one yeat old, and it has over sixty members, Very Good Community) falls under CSD A1 then we have a problem. --- Charles Stewart 14:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A1 deals with context, not notability. Noone is saying this could be a non-notable speedy, since A7 only applies to people. Moreover, A1 wants very little, but not no, context. This article says "X is a website about TI calculators, and it's one year old". That is certianly little context; whether it is little enough to speedy or not is a question. But it's ok to debate it without all these implications of impending doom if someone presses delete. -Splash 23:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Several comments. First, my 'votes' on this Review: relist both for out-of-process application of CSD.

  Second, there is a suggestion that deleted articles which are restored via WP:DRV should not automatically be relisted unless someone feels strongly that it should. In practice, there is probably little difference between this view and the opposite view, ie. that restored articles should be automatically listed on AFD unless there is a very strong reason not to. However, the difference is important enough to examine. I support the latter view. Remember firstly that articles can only be deleted by administrators; these are generally users who have a significant amount of experience with WP and a higher than average understanding of policy. If an administrator believes an article's shortcomings are severe enough to warrant deletion, that is usually (ie. far more often than not) prima facie evidence that something is at least quite wrong with the article. Admins do make mistakes however; in this particular case, the admin 1. selected an inappropriate method of deletion (SD instead of AFD) and 2. appears to have misunderstood CSD A7. DR addresses these mistakes. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, these mistakes are not egregious errors (for example, deleting a perfectly acceptable article like Canada), but rather technical/procedural mistakes made in deleting articles which are nevertheless very poor contributions. It therefore stands to reason that all articles which are restored be listed, unless it is clear that an obvious error was made. No harm comes from community examination of an article thought to be poor enough for deletion by at least one experienced editor (as long as the proper procedure is followed, per WP:DRV). There is also important for a second reason. The majority of inappropriate contributions to WP are caught soon after they are made, via NP patrol. That is to say, maintaining bare standards on WP is a front-loaded process: an inappropriate contribution that slips through has a good chance of remaining on WP even if it violated every cardinal articlespace policy in the book—something I believe all of us can agree is not good, regardless of almost any spot we usually find ourselves on in the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum. I am quite surprised that there is a possible suggestion that the articles in this review, Ticalcs and Vdesign, should not be listed fortwith—they clearly contravene cardinal mainspace policy.

  Third, we have the issue of clearly inappropriate pages which were nevertheless wrongly deleted. What to do when we are faced with articles of debatable merit that are wrongly speedied is clear: restore and have the debate. What to do when faced with virtually meritless contributions that were speedied under the wrong criterion, and which are virtually certain not to pass AFD, is less clear. One can be a stickler and send all inappropriate speedies to AFD. This is a simple and not unadmirable stance: it has the advantage of being the principled view. An alternate view is to not request an undelete if it is overwhelmingly clear that the outcomes will not differ. This is not uncommon; see for example The Sexy Sluts delete discussion on AN/I where Tony Sidaway remarks: "It was an obvious invalid speedy, but I don't feel moved to undelete it and I doubt whether any other admin will." There are other examples. Suffice to say, it is not unreasonable for Splash to take such a view, if in his opinion Ticalcs will simply not have a different outcome on AFD. If you disagree, and think the article should be AFD'd after undeletion, by all means go ahead and vote to list it. Or ask for a history undelete to look at the article yourself. But I disagree that it is "inappropriate for admins" to ask for a kd in such circumstances, as long as they explain themselves. The final decision on WP:DRV will depend on all comments.

  Fourth, there is a suggestion that "...it's a good idea to send the message that it's okay for admins to delete articles on the basis of non-notability..." Lifeisunfair, you probably meant to refer only to non-bio articles, but if not please note that articles are lawfully speedily deleted daily for non-notability, per WP:CSD A7. Regards encephalon 01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

October 29

Scandal Sheet!

This comic was deleted as being non-notable. I would disagree - the comic is well-known among comics fans, crossed-over with Something Positive, one of the most popular of all webcomics, and has managed to keep going for several years continuously. Also, while its forum may be, as the editor in question said, a 'ghost town', the livejournal community it's connected to isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth Munchkin (talk • contribs) 14:36, October 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted The AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scandal Sheet! appears valid. Nothing listed in this nomination that was not brought up during the AfD. --Allen3  15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the above. Valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted/Endorse Closer per Allen3. Xoloz 17:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• kd. I do not see any process problems. There is no new information that compels reconsideration. encephalon 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The information available now is the same as the information available at the time, and so there's no need to re-run the AfD debate. If someone provides some information that warrants a re-consideration, they are of course free to present it. I don't think the presence of the nominator here in the AfD would have made any difference, since the info offered isn't different, and the numbers involved in the AfD debate are sufficient. -Splash 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). Seven of the nine votes in the AfD were to delete, which is a sufficient consensus. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any issues with the AfD, and no new information has been brought forward that would suggest that the outcome would now be different if the article were re-nominated. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (Keep deleted), no new information to overturn the AFD. Titoxd 01:56, 31 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)

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance