Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 13:18, 21 April 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:18, 21 April 2005 by Radiant! (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Shortcut
  • ]

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

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:

  1. 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), because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion but were ignored.
  2. 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 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.

How to use this page

If you wish to undelete an article, follow the procedure explained at Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy. 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.

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

If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete.

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.


Temporary undeletion

April 14

Mauban, Quezon

What was in this, please? Kappa 21:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the Municipalities of mauban from are from Gat-Uban tha leader or datu of the said town on 15th century. he depend his town from the Moro, thats why his statue face to the sea
Damned if I know what that means. Postdlf 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 28

User:Anárion/VFDabuse

Please could User:Anárion/VFDabuse be at least temporarily undeleted (including its history). The page contains evidence of disruptive behaviour by a user, which is pertinent to a current request for arbitration. -Kieran 12:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rossb@rossco.org I have been playing an insert/revert game with administrater David.Monniaux in the Critizism section of "Rule of Law" (Rule of law) as follows:

Beg to differ. The "rule of law" is in itself a precisely defined law. It is the highest law of mankind, stated below:

“the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking”

“all are treated equally by the law”. This means ALL, including king and judges

“absolute property rights”

This in turn is based on the fact that human behavior (the topic of law) is about goal seeking. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possible methods: force, fraud and honest trade. Any transaction that is not an honest, mutually agreed trade will cause a self-defensive response (conflict) from the victim whose survival has been affected.

"The Rule of Law" is the glue that keeps all of mankind acting together in common interest, tied together by mutual dependence of trade, on an evolutionary path to excellence. Force and fraud creates conflict and destroys civilizations. Mankind is now on a devolutionary path to extinction because the co-operation once forced by "the rule of law" has been replaced by legitmizing force and fraud for those who incorrectly believe they wield power.

Proof: <http://www.rossco.org/HumanNature.pdf> Read appendices first.

Since the "rule of law" once formed the basis of western civilization, it is absolutely critical that we understand what it is. Consider this: Not one or any mob of your fellow citizens has any lawful right to use force or fraud against you or deprive you of your property. How then, does this zero power of your fellows become non-zero when the mob is organized by democracy or backed by guns? What confers this extra right? My answer is “corruption and suppression of the rule of law”. If you take the time to read my proof, especially the appendices, we may be able to come to agreement.

Bill Ross; rossb@rossco.org

March 23

Grandfather's Brother Paradox

  • I believe that this was Bad Jokes-grade material ("If you travel back and time and kill your grandfather's brother, nothing will happen to you") and I'd really like a copy for my User page or something like that. It doesn't seem to be on any of the mirror sites. -Litefantastic 15:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Grandfather's brother paradox is a paradox of time travel.
Suppose your grandfather had a brother that was shipwrecked on a deserted island. He survives for five years before the island sinks and he dies.
If you traveled back through time and killed him anytime during those five years, nothing would happen to you. (What about chaos theory?)
Related topics
Enjoy. But I think giving current sensitivity on such things it might be best not to put it on your user page. By the way, if your neighbor's peacock lays an egg on the roof of another neighbor's shed, and it rolls off and lands in your yard without breaking, who owns the egg? If an Air France plane crashes on the border of the United States and Canada, where do they bury the survivors? And how many three-cent stamps in a dozen? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't mean anything political; I just thought it had a nice anticlimactic tone to it. -Litefantastic 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not political. It's just a user recently caught some in-his-case-well-deserved flack for re-creating a deleted article in his user space. I don't really think there's any problem, but if you use it I suggest you make it a quotation within a page; specifically, don't create a subpage article User:Litefantastic/Grandfather's brother paradox or I think you may get some hostile questions about your intentions. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does the grandfather's brother's paradox have any relationship to an established logical paradox or theory? Everyking 03:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's just a joke or riddle or trick question, Everyking, like the others I tossed out above. There's no paradox, because your grandfather's brother is not your ancestor. (And peahens lay eggs, not peacocks. And you bury victims, not survivors. And there are twelve of anything in a dozen). As the article notes, it's a riff on Grandfather paradox, but that doesn't make it worth an article, any more than any other joke or riddle. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I thought maybe this is a humorous or idiosyncratic take on some kind of real logical or philosophical question. I didn't mean this itself was worth an article, just the general kind of logical issue it deals with. Everyking 09:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes for undeletion

Admins - please review the deleted history of these requests and provide the most complete version for discussion here.

Add new article listings below here

April 20, 2005

Daniel C. Boyer

In 2004, he told us he was scheduled to appear in the 2005 Who's Who in America. What ever happened with that? 24.4.127.164 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering how the last IP to make this comment on here turned out to be a sockpuppet of Mr. Boyer ,, I say we disregard this desperate plea for attention. Bugger off. Postdlf 04:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A quick look at 24.4.127.164's contribution history shows a variety of (irregularly spaced) contributions, mostly of the housekeeping type -- in marked contrast to the diff you cite -- so your off-the-cuff accusation strikes me as markedly unfair to 24.4.127.164. Strikes me as an obvious question to answer, though I'm skeptical of the notoriety a Who's Who listing really shows.
I think you owe 24.4.127.164 an apology. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio KoL

Well, I fail to understand what happened. User:Jinian closed the vfd for Radio KoL with consensus to merge (IMO, there were no consensus to merge, but that's not the interesting part). After merging the content, he then attempted to delete it (but it couldn't be deleted due to block compressing bug). If he succeeded then all history would've been destroyed, which is not appropriate when articles get merged (the proper thing is to leave the redirect). The article is protected now and I can't fix it. Grue 15:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • As I see there were other articles that he deleted after merging. I suggest they should also be undeleted and left as redirects to preserve history. Grue 15:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe we must make some "Merging Awareness". Regularly, things that should be merged get put on VfD - apparently it is rather unclear to new users how a merge actually works. Radiant_* 13:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

April 14, 2005

Waking the Tiger

This has been listed here for over five days. At least three people and a majority agree to undelete. Therefore, according to Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy, it should be undeleted. --SPUI (talk) 22:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Undeleted and relisted on VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 11, 2005

McElligott's Pool

This is a classic Dr. Seuss book, albeit mispelled (the correct spelling is McElligot's Pool). The deletion log states "content was: 'it's McElligot{{delete}}" but I wonder if the history contains a legitimate article. If it doesn't, disregard.Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the history but what Taco quoted plus a delete template. RickK 02:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - valid speedy deletion due to lack of...anything. A real article would be better off without it in the history. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The book is quite good, but I just cannot see why a page without content has reason to be. The book was quite good, I remember it well, but somebody here doesn't know how to spell. It was spelled with one T, I am certain that's true, and my library thinks it was spelled that way too. An article on it, when spelled with one T, you can write any time, you need no help from me. And when it is done, it would be quite correct to make the misspelling a nice redirect. Mistakes can occur and it's true that I see that Amazon has it spelled -gee-oh-tee-tee. And that's why I think that I'm not such a fool to vote keep deleted McElligott's Pool Dpbsmith (talk) 14:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • *clapping* That was awesome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Worth keeping deleted for that alone. Brilliant. Jayjg 18:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So brilliant I've added it to BJAODN. Oh, and keep deleted please. Radiant_* 11:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 18:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 8, 2005

Russian Communist attempt to abolish the family

I am a bit unsure about this nomination for undeletion since the article was a poor one, but I think Neutrality's speedy deletion of the article was out of place. There was not unanimity in deleting this (see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Russian Communist attempt to abolish the family), I myself voted a rather unsure merge. There was no wish for a speedy deletion either until Neutrality declared that the article was nonsense and speedied it. Is it not better to wait until the lag time runs out before speedying? From what I saw it seemed headed for a deletion anyway. Sjakkalle 14:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot say for sure whether or not some of the keep votes were in bad faith, but I can assure that my merge vote wasn't. Sjakkalle 14:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. However, I do think that Neutrality should have let the VfD run its course. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with both points. Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some observations. For the record, I have made a step by step review of the vfd-debate, sifting through the history. I have made the following observations.

  1. I find eight clear delete votes, including Neutralities speedy vote, but removing Trylobyte's one. Trylobyte's delete vote should be discounted since he changed his vote but forgot to strike out his old one. Just to clarify: Trylodyte changed his vote from delete to merge.
  2. There is one vote which must be regarded as keep, Agwiis's. That is after taking out one of Agwii's double votes. There is a second keep vote, made by an anon after the page was deleted. I'll discount it.
  3. There is my merge vote, and Trylodyte also voted merge after originally voting delete.
  4. There is a rewrite vote from Matt Stan.
  5. There is an unsigned rewrite vote by an anon (above Matt Stan's one). I will disregard that one.

Summing up the votes and subtracting those which I have explained, I find eight delete votes, and four to not delete. If we say a two-thirds majority to delete constitutes a consensus, than at the time of the speedy there was only a bare consensus, and there were still two days to go on the vfd-debate. Actually anything could have happened. Sjakkalle 09:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 19:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If anybody wants to unlist this nomination now, I will not complain. I would have liked to see the article undeleted and searched for useful content, but perhaps there wasn't much worth keeping anyway. Still, I do think that the speedy deletion was out of process, and I will urge that administrators refrain from unilaterly declaring that an article is nonsense and speedy deleting before the lag time runs out, especially when there are some voices not wanting deletion on the VfD. Sjakkalle 07:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 5, 2005

Types of animals

Final version: . Misplaced Pages needs to create more content like this, rather than deleting it. The votes were approximately 10-8, indicating no consensus to delete, also the nomination was withdrawn. I appeal to voters to vote on the article, not its history. Kappa 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't really deleted at the moment, it's in TBSDY's space with all the history. Why not just move it back with a pointer to the failed VfD on the talk page (and leave a copy of the original in TBSDY's spot, since he liked it) ? You don't really need a new vote for that. --iMb~Meow 06:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 2, 2005

List of General Slocum victims

This list was originally deleted per vote at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of General Slocum victims, and moved to Wikisource:List of General Slocum victims. Now, a similar list which was also moved to Wikisource (per requests here) was VFD'd on wikisource, with people saying that it belongs here. (Wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions#March 2005). --brian0918&#153; 17:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reasons this list belongs on Misplaced Pages:
  1. Columbine High School massacre#Victims exists on Misplaced Pages
  2. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Misplaced Pages
  3. Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Misplaced Pages
  4. Persons missing after the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Misplaced Pages
  5. http://sep11.wikipedia.org/FDNY exists in the Misplaced Pages space
  6. http://sep11.wikipedia.org/Tributes_to_companies exists in the Misplaced Pages space
  7. Canal Hotel Bombing#List of victims exists on Misplaced Pages
  8. Maxim restaurant suicide bombing#List of the 21 victims exists on Misplaced Pages

Either all of these should be kept, and this list should be undeleted, or all of these should be deleted. If these are all kept, then so should any future lists of disaster victims. --brian0918&#153; 18:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Sorry Wikisource didn't want it either, but that doesn't give Misplaced Pages any obligation to take it. Citation of other articles is irrelevant, because VfU is for correction of improperly deleted articles, not for reconsideration of articles voted for deletion. Since Misplaced Pages does not have any review procedure for accepting articles, the fact that an article is in Misplaced Pages and has not been deleted does not imply that there's been any consensus judgement that the article is encyclopedic. Had I been voting in the VfD, I would have noted established policy excludes memorials. I would have judged that the lists Canal Hotel Bombing and Maxim restaurant suicide bombing were acceptable because they were short lists in the context of an article, which the General Slocum list is not. And I would have judged that the 9/11 and Columbine victims list warranted an exception because they are associated with extremely notable events that are thought to have an especially tragic character. The General Slocum disaster did not occur within living memory and there are probably no living relatives of the victims. But in any case all this was a topic for VfD, not VfU. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So, you'll keep a list if it's short (and by the fact that it's short, did not affect as many people), and you'll keep a list if it's about something you remember seeing on TV in your lifetime. Not very neutral. Screw the past because it doesn't affect us? --brian0918&#153; 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I won't fuss about an inappropriate list if it's a relatively short part of a long article and if other editors want it there. And I won't be the one to nominate a list of 9/11 victims for deletion, but not because "I saw it on television in my lifetime." And I don't think we should list the 50,000 people who died in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, you claim that a short list is alright if it's in the appropriate article. Well, where's the cutoff? It's alright to keep a list of 10 people who died in a bombing because the 10 can be listed in the article, but when a disaster which is ORDERS larger occurs, its list will obviously be much longer (and the disaster will obviously impact the world more greatly, thus being more noteworthy). This list, however, would need its own article because it is too long to include in the original article on the disaster. But, according to your argument, a list such as this shouldn't have its own article, even if it's linked in the original article and is in context. So, where's the cutoff? Is it alright for 15 people to be listed, in that article, but not for 150, which would need its own article, and so should not exist? Is 40 alright, but not 50? --brian0918&#153; 18:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That's why we decide these things case by case. If we could do it with an algorithm, we wouldn't need VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I think you missed my point. This is all arbitrary. Are we really supposed to decide such similar articles case by case based on random whims? --brian0918&#153; 21:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • No, we are supposed to decide such similar articles case by case based on good judgement and community consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • "Community consensus" is just the random whim of whatever users are currently active and happen to visit the VFD/VFU pages. This is why we need precedent. --brian0918&#153; 01:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Precedent is often mentioned in VfD discussions. That was the appropriate place to make your points. If you had strong feelings about the article, why didn't you have it on your watchlist? Then you would have seen the change when it was placed on VfD and would have had ample opportunity to discuss it in VfD. This is VfU. This is not a VfD reconsideration, it is a forum for discussing whether there was anything wrong with the VfD process; for example, was the sysop correct in judging that the debate indicated rough consensus to delete? Was there evidence of sockpuppet votes that should have been ignored? etc. etc. I'm sorry you don't like my side remarks about how I would have voted in VfD, but since I didn't vote in that VfD it doesn't matter. I shouldn't have said anything about it. My vote of "keep deleted" here not based on my opinion that the article should be deleted, it is based on my judgement that the VfD was proper. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So, a summary of your logic: a disaster which impacts less will have less victims and so the victims can be in that article, but a disaster which impacts more will have more victims, but that list will be so long as to warrant its own article, but that article shouldnt exist because lists should be in the article on the disaster. --brian0918&#153; 18:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was logical. I was saying that's how I would have voted on this particular article had it come up for VfD. And explaining why I don't personally plan to nominate the others for VfD or personally delete the lists in the articles you mention that contain them. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As for context, here was the intro to the article: "The General Slocum was a steamship that burned in the East River in New York City on June 15, 1904. Over 1,000 people died in the tragedy, making it New York City's worst loss-of-life disaster until the September 11, 2001 attacks."
      • A full article on the General Slocum disaster would be fine. And a good stub on it would be fine, too. It would be highly appropriate for such an article to contain short capsule descriptions of any victims who perished who were notable enough to warrant such mention, but not so notable as to merit articles of their own. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, it's not just that Wikisource didn't want it, they said it belonged here. --brian0918&#153; 19:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The Wikisource project doesn't speak for Misplaced Pages. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. Just because WIkisource doesn't want it means we have to take it. RickK 19:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • So you're not going to bother to respond to any of my other comments? As for your "reason": it's not just that Wikisource didn't want it, they said it belonged here. --brian0918&#153; 19:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As dbpsmith said, Wikisource doesn't speak for Misplaced Pages. RickK 00:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Undelete. I take Dpbsmith's point about what VfU is for: correction of improper deletions, not reconsideration of articles. I do think this was improperly deleted. Please take a look at how the wipedia vfd went: people did vote to delete, but they mostly did so with the stipulation that the list wouldn't disappear, it would be kept at wikisource. These stipulations are of different kinds, some clear and some fuzzy, but it honestly looks to me as if only two people are voting to delete outright, the rest ask for it to be deleted on condition of being kept at wikisource. They couldn't know wikisource wouldn't want it either, so they were voting for an alternative that turned out not to exist. Please take a look for yourself, see if you agree. If the deletion represents an outcome that the vfd voters actually didn't want, and would not have voted for, then surely the deletion should be reversed? The deletion was "proper" only in the most formalistic sense. --Bishonen|Talk 21:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, point us to Wikisource vote. Clearly belongs on Wikisource; there is no detailed listing of the victims of the September 11 attacks on the main Misplaced Pages space. If they still won't take it, please point me and anyone else to any new vote at Wikisource.--Pharos 22:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What about this list? --brian0918&#153; 22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait... you just put that on VfD. Why do you prefer the General Slocum list? Anyway, I put a message on the Wikisource page about the 'similar list' and I suggest that others do too. There's been virtually no debate on this there at all.--Pharos 22:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't prefer one over the other. I want both of them to exist. But, it currently appears that the 9/11 list is favored over the General Slocum list, which is definitely not a neutral stance. --brian0918&#153; 22:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest that the policy be this: "1. If the entire list of victims (non-notables included) CAN fit within the article, allow it. 2. If the list of all victims (non-notables included) CANNOT fit in the article within reason (adhearing to file size guidelines, general appearance of page, etc.), only notables may be included, but a link to the full list (on external source) can be provided." Anyone in agreement? I think those would be sensible rules. That would allow the Septemper 11th lists to remain intact (transwikied), and if an article is significant enough for inclusion on the Misplaced Pages, a casualty list from an external source should be found without significant effort. -Phobophile 23:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree: This gives an advantage to smaller incidents which, by their very nature, are less noteworthy, so the people in those incidents are less noteworthy, so you're saying that people who are less noteworthy are more important.
    • Also, there are other sources in the world besides the internet. So finding an external link is not always an option (true for this case and most others). --brian0918&#153; 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with Phobophile's reasoning. I don't think this is (or should be) an issue of "advantage" or "disadvantage" to victims of different disasters or tragedies. Actually, the list of those who died in the World Trade Center (the vast majority) is on the memorial wiki, and other lists of otherwise non-notable victims from other events should be on Wikisource.--Pharos 00:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and Wikisource VFD'd one with the claim that it should be here. --brian0918&#153; 00:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm' has not been deleted; it has been proposed for deletion at this page (for info to others) by one user, after which you expressed some (somewhat justifiable) exasperation, but did not actually oppose it. I have voted to oppose it myself, and suggest that other Wikipedians following this page do so as well.--Pharos 00:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: most likely listed here to make a point following the VfD of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: Pentagon. --InShaneee 00:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, this is not to make a point. I want this article to exist somewhere. The 9/11 vfd was simply to remain neutral. If one can't exist, neither can the others. --brian0918&#153; 00:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you want it to exist somewhere, put it in your User space. RickK 00:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Again avoiding the issue. Can you contribute anything substantial? --brian0918&#153; 00:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • brian was wrong to "make a point" on the pentagon list, but we cannot have Wikisource delete all of their lists that are linked to from here. Have your voice heard there, where it counts for this.--Pharos 00:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • You know what? I've said all I have to say to you. You have a history of making vicious attacks on people who disagree with you, and I refuse to play the game. RickK 19:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikimedia Commons. Before we get ahead of ourselves, I think the victim list would be suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Any thoguhts? -Phobophile 02:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Currently at least, the Commons does not host text. The place for this is Wikisource.--Pharos 03:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • According to their site they do: The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project. --brian0918&#153; 17:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • But this text is not "used in pages of any Wikimedia project." RickK 19:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Agree with Bishonen that this was improperly deleted and that there is good reason to host it at Misplaced Pages proper. —RaD Man (talk) 00:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, compared to these other lists it fits right in. No reason this should have been deleted IMO.  ALKIVAR™ 00:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, the VfD process was valid. WikiMemorial may want it, but that's their business. Radiant_* 11:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid VfD. Jayjg 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure the VFD was valid, but it can be undeleted if new information comes up, such as Wikisource not wanting the image either, when everyone originally voted to move it to Wikisource. --brian0918&#153; 22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No. The VfD vote was that Misplaced Pages doesn't want it. If Wikisource doesn't want it, then why should we be forced to take it? RickK 23:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid VfD. When we suggest an alternative site which might want the material, all we are really saying is "submit to..." because we cannot guarantee the other project will want it. If we VfD a dicdef and the consensus is "transwiki to Wiktionary" that means we submit it to Wiktionary. If they don't keep it, that doesn't mean we have to, or that the VfD consensus should be reversed. It is the same with Wikisource or any other sister project. Valid VfD, keep deleted. SWAdair | Talk 05:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If originally deleted with "no" votes that hinged on a stipulation that proved unworkable, then there should be a new vote - after we determine if Radiant's suggestion of WikiMemeorial is valid or not. We should let the editors know if the article will be deleted and not listed in any Wiki. If they still vote to delete then that will be a strong consensus. I think that lists of victims is something that should be debated until a consensus is reached. I suspect that they don't really belong on Misplaced Pages at all, neither small lists in articles nor large lists as articles, even historically significant. What about WikiLists? AboutWestTulsa 20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, the consensus is that it doesn't belong here. That does not mean we keep it until we find some place else to put it. And it has already been established that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. By all means go and ask on WikiLists if they want it.
      • There is no such thing as "WikiLists"; AboutWestTulsa was proposing an idea for an alternative list-o-centric Wiki, which does not exist. As of now, let's just make sure it does not become Wikisource policy to delete their lists, which don't belong here as encyclopedia articles but are certainly important sources of information.--Pharos 09:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radiant_* 09:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • The article was invalidly recreated. I have redeleted it. RickK 22:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - the article on the event already has an external link to wikisource for the complete list. It's in-house so keep this duplicate deleted. - Tεxτurε 19:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete - this article does not belong on Wikisource since it is not an original source. It should either be moved to Wikicommons (according to the arguments listed above), Wikibooks (as a community created list) or Misplaced Pages (until a more appropriate place is found for it). I agree with Brian0918 that it is valuable, but Wikisource is not the place for it. CSN 01:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that every project is deleting it, saying that it doesn't belong on their project. I personally have no problem if the information were lost for good or if it had to be published on just a web page, but would lists like General Slocum and the Great Lakes storm be important enough for their own project? —Zhaladshar 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted from WikiCommons following a request at Commons:Deletion requests. Thuresson 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

March 18, 2005

Trade Federation PAC VfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Trade Federation PAC

I don't see how there was consesus to delete this. By my count the vote was 4 for merging, 4 for deletion, and 2, somewhat dubious, votes for it to be kept. - SimonP 21:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete. I'll quibble with your count—I see five deletes (including the nominator and TenOfAllTrades's delete-or-merge, since no one suggested a target), three merges (including Meelar's unsigned vote), and two keeps—but even ignoring both keeps, this doesn't rise to the usual 2/3 guideline. —Korath (Talk) 17:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I see only three clear unequivocal deletes, by Isomorphic, BM, and TenOfAllTrades; plus the nominator, whose intent is plain, for a total of four. I see a "keep with reservations" by Megan1967 and a plain Keep from The Recycling Troll, for a total of two. That's exactly 2/3. Whatever the other votes are, they are definitely not deletes. If you can't assess consensus at a glance, there probably isn't consensus. So, let's send it back to VfD and hope for a clearer outcome this time. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The delete you're missing is Paul Richter's. —Korath (Talk) 23:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah. I see it. It's in boldface 'n' everything, just not at the beginning of the line. Oh, well. Thanks for pointing it out. (No change in my vote). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed about lack of consensus. However, there is a clear consensus that this doesn't deserve its own article, so how about being bold and merging it with other Star Wars items, per recent discussion on VfD? Radiant_* 14:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, not consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 10:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 1

Manipulation check

Was speedied, but I think we need it back, with a {{cleanup-context}} tag or something. It looks like an important concept in experiment design, gets 11,200 hits
Content was: 'Manipulation check is a measurement, in addition to the dependent variable, that determines whether each condition of the independent variable had its...') Kappa 08:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • So just write it up with some context; as it was, it was pure dicdef. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that would be easier for someone who understands it. Kappa 19:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You could add it to Requested Articles? Btw why was this deleted? Radiant! 10:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it would be easier for someone who understands it to clean it up than to write a new article from scratch. The reason for deletion would presumably be some combinations of "short, no context", "nonsense" and/or "dictdef". Kappa 01:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, should've been marked for cleanup rather than deleted. ··gracefool |☺ 10:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Category: