| Revision as of 19:18, 17 August 2004 view sourceAngela (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users45,368 edits →[]: Undeleted← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:23, 17 August 2004 view source Angela (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users45,368 edits →[]: archivedNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| === August 12 (end August 22) === | === August 12 (end August 22) === | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| Consensus was to keep deleted. Only one vote to undelete. Discussion moved to ]. | |||
| ] - now to be listed in the 2005 edition of ''Who's Who in America'' --] 18:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :No undelete history for this page. ]] 18:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Suggested as a Requested article now. --] 20:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| '''Keep deleted''' | |||
| *Keep deleted - This or a slightly differently named article was voted on VfD and deleted. - ]]] 20:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Keep deleted. Is it still listed on requested articles? I deleted it a couple of days ago. ]] 20:47, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Keep deleted. Do we even accept undeletion nominations from anons? This should be especially suspect considering how Mr. Boyer himself is a wikipedia user who frequently edited his eponymous article, spread links to it into multiple articles, created articles about his family members, and dragged out the VfD debate into an exhausting morass over his supposed notability as an artist, all while feigning disinterest in whether it was kept. I wonder how many other people got themselves included in Who's Who by relentlessly spreading their own name over the internet; as the VfD debate revealed, there are innumerable online art sites which take no effort to get mentioned on. Absent some concrete, non-obscure source of information about Mr. Boyer, undeleting it is just going to make it into a vehicle for self-promotion and a source of futile edit wars again. It's going to take a pretty strong showing to convince me that including this article would be useful to anyone but Mr. Boyer. I really believe the anon who nominated this is a sock puppet—his edits have mirrored Mr. Boyer's contributions, and he apparently tried to create another article on a Boyer relative (only the redirects survive). ] 22:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted. Ignore request from anonymous editor. ] 06:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted. Wait until he is listed in Who's Who and then reconsider. ]] 06:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted, for good reasons described above. ] 08:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted until verifiable and then evaluated, including review of WWIA's criteria unless this has been adequately done before, and estimate of fraction of WWIA folks currently meeting our standards. (There have been people in WWIA that i've never heard of and who have no Web mention.) --]] 23:32, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC) | |||
| ** Though I would agree with this in general, I question whether requiring someone to have a Web mention as a criterion for an article is appropriate. Is Misplaced Pages just to be a regurgitation of material available on the World Wide Web? Why are offline sources "lesser"? --] 20:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted. Danny, I don't think you're neutral here. :) - ] ] 18:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ** I don't know what the point of this is as if you'd bother to read below you'd see that my vote is "no vote" and I note that if I did vote it would be to keep deleted. --] 20:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted. ] — ] ] 18:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted, if nothing more than to discourage Danny and his anonymous alter egos from coming back. You've succeeded in making me care enough to not want you here. I agree with the above comments on WWIA, although there are people with articles here I don't know about either. - ] 20:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted. IIRC, the article was contentious for many reasons, not the least among them the presence of the sort of extensive "neutral advocacy" typified by the discussion below for each edit to the article. Further, the content inclusion standards have grown gradually tighter, making its proposed retention even less plausible. I would suggest that any new evidence of notability justifying inclusion should be provided by the anon sponsor before undeletion is seriously considered. ] 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted. I'd have to research the details to be sure, but I don't trust Who's Who in America as a criterion for notability; I believe they may do a fair amount of paid listings. They claim to have one million listings, which would work out to 1 in 300 residents of the US. Beyond that, no new information provided in support of undeletion. --] 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep deleted, since someone as wholly undistinguished as myself has received junk mail, shilling for by biographical info, in exchange for a purchase of this huge and rapidly-becoming-less-trustworthy tome -- ] 15:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| '''Undelete''' | |||
| * Undelete. I don't know or care who Daniel Boyer is, but Misplaced Pages needs to stop this deletion fetish before the project self-destructs. There is not, nor can there be, a fixed definition of notable. Misplaced Pages is dynamic and is an '''alternative''' encyclopedia. There is plenty of room in Misplaced Pages for articles about people who may be notable only within small communities. ] 02:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| '''Other comments''' | |||
| *In my opinion UtherSRG's vote should be discounted, as it is admittedly based on prejudice against a person ("This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''."). --] 20:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **You missed the sarcasm. YRTE. - ] 20:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * While I don't know about WWIA in particular, many related "Who's who" volumes will accept sponsored listings for a nominal fee (usually around $100 US). ] 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ** This is true of a some "Who's Who", but not Marquis' ''Who's Who in America.'' --] 14:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Neutral for the time being. If the previous article was deleted on the grounds that Daniel Boyer was not famous enough, and ''if'' he has become more famous in the meantime then IMO the previous VfD debate is irrelevent. ] 20:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *No vote, but if I did vote it would be for the article to stay deleted on the simple basis that the history is now gone. Postdlf does hint at an interesting question, however. Are we to take into account self-promotion, or the extent of self-promotion, by individuals, when considering whether there should be articles about them? There are a number of fields in which it is of the essence (for fame, money &c.); we could simply note business (it's called advertising), and certainly it is a usual practice for artists (are we to discount the heavy, heavy role that their own self-promotion played in the fame of Salvador Dali, Andy Warhol, &c.?), aspiring actors, &c. I think Postdlf is setting up an unworkable standard. We can judge the fame alone of individuals, but discounting the role their own self-promotion played in that fame is going to be difficult, and is going to lead to some obviously ridiculous results. --] 00:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ** Self-promotion is prima facie evidence for the need to self-promote and thus of non-notability (tho such evidence can be overcome). It is also evidence of a need to examine contrary evidence especially closely, lest further self-promotion be mistaken for recognition. And show us some "obviously ridiculous results" to consider instead of hypothesizing them ... oh, never mind, that's not your job, that's a job for someone with an interest in getting people who belong in WP onto it, not someone interested in self-promotion. --]] 23:32, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC) | |||
| *** I would agree with only some of this. I don't think self-promotion is necessarily "prima facie evidence for the need to self-promote and thus of non-notability" as such a standard, without any additional subtlety of application, seems to spring from some bizarre conception of purity that is laughably inapplicable to certain fields; it posits, for example, that the painter paints secretly in his studio, hoping that somehow by magic gallery owners will see the virtue of his painting, without him sending out any slides or doing anything else which will ever allow them to know he exists. That said, self-promotion that can be done immediately by the mere wish of the self-promoter, without any filter (such as an editor, gallery owner, &c.), ''if'' unaccompanied by any evidence that people have noticed this self-promotion and it is beginning to shade into recognition or fame for the self-promoter, should obviously be ignored by Misplaced Pages. However, if the product of self-promotion is recongition or fame, to ignore that recognition or fame because it is the product of self-promotion is absurd; this is what I am saying. I would, however, also agree that "examine contrary evidence especially closely." (I might note that it is a violation of "assume good faith" by Jerzy to draw implications about my character from this discussion.) | |||
| **** Huh? Ignored until the supposed implications are identified on my talk page. --]] 20:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) | |||
| *** As for the "obviously ridiculous results," I would have thought that they were clear from what I said above, but obviously, not clear enough. What I am saying is that ] and ], amongst others, were relentless self-promoters, to a degree that many found distasteful. One can almost not escape the argument that their fame derived, to a greater or lesser degree, from such self-promotion. Is the argument that there might be some possibility that Dali and Warhol ''shouldn't'' have articles about them in Misplaced Pages because we are going to discount this self-promotion? This is what I am describing as "obviously ridiculous". On the other hand, criminals committing significant crimes, who wished to conceal their identities yet were nonetheless arrested and convicted, received "recognition" that they in no way wanted. In summmary, my argument that it is the evidence of recognition, however that recognition was obtained, that should be chiefly considered, and the entire spectrum ranging from whether the recognition was constantly pushed for by its subject, to whether the recongition was completely unwanted, that I find pretty much unworkable. --] 15:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ****There's a difference between being responsible for your own notability and being responsible for the only supposed evidence of your notability. A graffiti artist could claim that he's notable because his name is on every building in the city, but that doesn't mean anyone has taken note of him among the thousands of taggers, anymore than they've noticed one listing among thousands in web directories, no matter how many web directories that entry has been posted to, or one participant among dozens in one group show among thousands. If, however, enough people have noticed that graffiti artist everywhere so that they start talking about him and wondering who he is and actively appreciating or loathing his tag, then that may be a different story. But if the only one I hear talking about the graffiti artist is himself, I don't give a damn how many buildings he's slapped his name on. But keep it up. The more you pursue this, the more you guarantee that no one will ever want an article about you on wikipedia even if you show in the Guggenheim and make the cover of Artforum. ] 17:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *****I would fully agree with your four sentences, and if you would read what I wrote above, I would hope that that was made clear enough there. What I vehemently ''disagree'' with is your conduct when I am clearly discussing a general issue, not myself in particular, and you persist in ascribing motives to me. While I would clearly say that if ''you'' are saying that if I had a show at the Guggenheim and made the cover of ''Artforum'' ''you'' would not want an article about me in Misplaced Pages, you are admitting to a sort of anti-Daniel C. Boyer bias that has no place in Misplaced Pages just as bias regarding another subject would not, I am obliged to remind that I did ''not'' vote on this, and that I said that if I would, it would be for Daniel C. Boyer to remain deleted. I am not "pursuing this." It is a breach of Wikiquette to read motives like this into general discussion of issues. --] 17:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ******"General discussion of issues"? Please, you just happened to pop up when an article about yourself was nominated for undeletion, and you're clearly trying to influence the discussion. Whatever presumption of good faith you deserved was erroded long ago. Stop trying to act so innocent. My only "bias" is against people trying to use wikipedia for self-promotion, particularly when they feign disinterest, a bias shared by most of the serious contributors on here. ] 18:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *******Stop trying to act so innocent yourself. You repeatedly make statements that are either false or misleading, and then when corrected on them slip out of the accusation by repeatedly reframing the original accusation. When presented with evidence about something you admit that you can't be bothered to actually ''read'' all the evidence, yet feel completely qualified to draw conclusions about it. (You have done this not only regarding Daniel C. Boyer but the subject of surrealism, in which I have offered a great deal of citation and documentation to debunk your claims about it, citation you have completely ignored.) When you start talking saying that because I am generally discussing issues if I have a show at the Guggenheim or am on the cover of ''Artforum'' people on Misplaced Pages will not ever want an article about me you could just as well have been said to have had any presumption of good faith eroded as I have. | |||
| *******The issues regarding self-promotion I brought up are just as relevant to many other articles or possible articles as they were/are to Daniel C. Boyer. --] 18:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ********I love how you keep claiming people are biased or prejudiced against you. The harsh judgments you are receiving are based entirely on your exhibited past and present conduct—how else are we to form any opinion of you? I also don't know what you're talking about regarding ], because as far as I can remember, I've never edited that article and haven't made any "claims" about it. But I'm done responding to you—thus far, no one has ever managed to change your mind about your approach, or get you to admit that your "neutral advocacy" is anything but neutral, and I obviously don't have to worry that others won't see your comments for what they are. ] 22:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| === Aug 16 (end Aug 26) === | === Aug 16 (end Aug 26) === | ||
Revision as of 19:23, 17 August 2004
Shortcut- ]
Stuff is deleted by administrators. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. The forthcoming meta:deletion management redesign may address many of these issues, but that is some way off. See also:deletion policy and undeletion policy.
Please note that the archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.
Purpose of this page
It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:
- People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on votes for deletion (VfD), or because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion, but were ignored.
- Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. 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.
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 wikipedia talk:administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
If you wish to undelete an article, list it here with a brief reason. The procedure explained at Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy will then be followed, and if the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.
If you wish to view a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it.
See also Misplaced Pages:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.
History only undeletion
History only undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for deletion 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 case of copyright violations.
Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/deleted. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/undeleted
Votes for undeletion
Add new votes at the bottom.
August 12 (end August 22)
Daniel C. Boyer
Consensus was to keep deleted. Only one vote to undelete. Discussion moved to Template:VfD-Daniel C Boyer.
Aug 16 (end Aug 26)
Fairbairn
- Fairbairn was deleted despite two voters on Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion#August 6 who think the title is useful for a Dab, vs. nominator favoring deletion. (This would seem to be a precedent for eliminating all Dab pages whose titles are surnames.) --Jerzy(t) 20:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)