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 00:36, 28 December 2005 (→[]: kd / not real). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:36, 28 December 2005 by Radiant! (talk | contribs) (→[]: kd / not real)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

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

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 January 8}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 8}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 8|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

2005-12-27

Infosecpedia

AfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosecpedia, closed 12/24.

So, this article is about an online encyclopedia and handbook and wiki. It utterly fails WP:WEB by even the most liberal standards. It has accrued a grand total of 256 articles accross seven years. And in the AfD, an admin on Infosecpedia admitted "The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam)." It has a claim to fame in that Jimbo had something to do with it at one point... but the site is dead, tiny, and unvisited. The problem occured, initially with my half-assed nomination - hell, quarter-assed. Needless to say, I should have put all the above into the nom, but I just put "NN website," which was 1) true, and 2) hideously inadequate. That wasn't the only AfD I phoned in that day, for which I have made ammends. Anyway, the AfD was also bogged down by a user that was voting more against me, then looking at the page itself, and my frustrations with that user. Throw in militant inclusionists ("It exists"!... angry sigh), it was a mess for which I take the blame, and something got lost: that this article does not meet our standards of inclusion by a long shot. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Titoxd's decision, and I am thus not asking for it to be overturned (deleted), but overturned (relisted), with a proper nomination, which, pending the discussion here, I will fill out myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, this is an extraordinarily compelling DRV nomination. Personally, I lean toward keeping the site, because it has an Interwiki link and it is conceivable it might appear here. I do think the article should be updated to mention the thing is moribund, of course. Mr Gustafson's mea culpa is appreciated, there is new information here, and the debate was not ideal. I endorse the closure without prejudice against immediate renom. I do think someone other than Mr. Gustafson should handle renominating, however, to avoid unneeded negative animus from the article's supporters. Xoloz 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uphold AfD discussion - I sympathasise with Jeffrey's frustration, but the most cogent of the above facts did in fact come out in the AfD discussion. Had I participated in that AfD, I would have voted to redirect to List of wikis, where the site is mentioned. I'd be perfectly happy to see the site relisted for AfD, and I don't see why Jeffrey shouldn't try again: it was a no consensus, after all.--- Charles Stewart 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse WhiteNight 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-26

Template:User Capitalist

I have no idea why this template has been deleted. It seems absolutely ridiculous, and no reason has been provided by any administrator. There is no argument for why it should be deleted... so WHY has it been deleted? There is no good reason, therefore

Comment - I'm now confused as to how many decisions there have been... so in order to clarify my position above, I would like the template to be undeleted and returned to the state it was in this time last week. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 19:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete Merovingian's version which was deleted in honest error (the earlier version was validly speedied). Althought personally, I'd delete all sUCH pov flags. --Doc 20:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My $0.02. I originally created the template as a favor for a friend, who was using a userbox made out of html code (instead of a swanky template). I requested mine be deleted since he had apparently already created one of his own. Apparently I was wrong on the second part. Anyways, if people want to undelete it and use it, I have no problem with it.--Kross | Talk 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

This discussion has become very long. In order to improve the performance of the page and to reduce the incidence of edit-conflicts, this discussion has been moved to a sub-page. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy to read and participate in the discussion. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-25

Homespring

This was deleted about a year ago because the language was more or less dead. I have written a new, much faster, interpreter and a graphical debugger here. I have also improved the documentation to the point where I think it is usable. I believe that homespring is now more alive than most of the other esoteric languages that _do_ have pages so it would be nice to have it undeleted as a starting point for further edits/revisions. 203.173.0.180 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Homespring

2005-12-22

Various stub template redirects

These were all listed on WP:SFD, despite WP:RFD being the palce to go for redirects. The SFD people in general dislike redirects that may be useful but do not follow their conventions. (Furthermore, the ensuing redirect is deleted by default when a stub template is moved, also in defiance of common sense.)

Note: I would just re-create these, as I don't need anything actually undeleted, but they would just be speedied again and eventually protected blank. (Edit: I have re-created them, so we can see the idiocy in action.)

This is a very incomplete list of these redirects.

Finally, I do not believe these give any increased server load, unlike meta-templates, due to being redirects. If you click edit on a page that uses a template redirect, only the actual name shows up below the edit box. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, for the good reasons explained on WP:SFD. This is part of a campaign by SPUI against WP:SFD as a whole, apparently because his opinion is in the minority there. See also his recent attempt to delete the entire process. Radiant_>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi /C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Just use plain {{stub}} if you don't like being forced into typing evil CamelCase names. —Cryptic (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. These were deleted out of process, since redirects are supposed to be deleted on WP:RFD, and the decisions are thus not valid. I don't see the point of making things difficult just for the hell of it. - ulayiti (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and by the way, the person of the nominator is not a valid reason to vote against a nomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This is simply wrong. You might as well state that templates and categories should always be deleted on TFD and CFD respectively. SFD was created to deal with stub issues and that apparently includes redirects. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • SFD was created so that stub categories and stub templates could be deleted within the same process, so that there wouldn't be cases where only one or the other was deleted. This mandate applies to redirects only so far as the redirects point to templates or categories that are voted to be deleted anyway. Misplaced Pages:Redirect explicitly says that users should avoid deleting redirects if they help in accidental linking and/or are found useful by someone. - ulayiti (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here we go with the re-deletions, once again out of process:
    23:31, 23 December 2005 Grutness deleted "Template:Us-rail-stub" (speedy deletion of formerly deleted re-creation by User:SPUI)
  • --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Also note that a lot of these redirects have been recreated- and according to the above I suspect they were deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete per ulayiti. Not only were they deleted out of process. It's just plain nonsensical to make it harder to find the correct stub template. Logical redirects should stand to make stub sorting easier. - Mgm| 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete. I can't see why anyone could be bothered by variations with and without a hyphen. It doesn't have to be just one and only one version. -- Eddie
  • Undelete. Obvious error by the deletion process here; harmless redirects should not be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete And speedy-keep stub template redirects that differ only in capitalization, spacing, or hyphenation, and anything else that might help non-experts sort stubs. Too many times I've inadvertantly left a red link at the bottom of a stub page due to unexpected and/or inconsistant naming conventions. I typically give up after clicking the preview button 3 times and not finding a valid stub type. Shouldn't the stub folks want it to be easier for others to help them? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:14, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Overturn and undelete. This is the sort of situation in which I ordinarily would be arguing against the bureaucracy of blindly following "process," even when it defies common sense. In this case, however, the deletions were out-of-process; redirects fall under the jurisdiction of RfD, and there's absolutely no logical reason why the deletion of stub redirects should be handled at SfD (notwithstanding their instructions). As for the issue of common sense, I can't imagine why anyone would want to eliminate these harmless/useful redirects. Just last week, I couldn't remember what the naming convention was, and I didn't guess the correct spelling of a stub template ({{music-stub}}) until my third try. At the time, it occurred to me that redirects from the other obvious names ({{musicstub}} and {{music stub}}) would have been handy. I find it very difficult to believe that the regular stub-sorters would actually want to make it more difficult for "outsiders" to help, but I'm struggling to find another explanation for these deletions. —David Levy 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete for those who still wish to use them. I must say I'm surprised that the Depredations of the Evil Stub Cabal are finally starting to generate some real backlash, even though I'm sure these would all just be deleted again if relisted at WP:SFD. Regardless, I know I'm through with jumping through arbitrary hoops and will still just be using plain {{stub}}; the whole stubsorting project is just a crutch to tide us over until meta:Category math is a reality. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2011 Atlantic hurricane season

Page was deleted because we had the 2005 list. Now that 2005 is over, page should be restored with 2005 list clearly stating that names like Katrina and Wilma being retired is only speculation until the official decision is made. -- Eddie 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Afd can be found here --Doc 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, undelete. Eddie
  • endorse - kd - valid enforcement of AfD decision - come back in 3 years or so. --Doc 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; nothing's changed other than the passage of a few weeks. Extremely unlikely to change the AfD participators' minds. Adding rants to the bottom of articles doesn't help your case, whoever thought that was a good idea. Also, the precise problems with the information as observed in the AfD haven't gone away yet. -Splash 12:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. I agree there's no need to create the article, but when it already exists then what's the harm in having it? - ulayiti (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point, and that's what this review is all about -- Eddie
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted Valid AfD, no process problems alleged, AfD vote not close, valid reasons for deletion cited, no reason to think relisting would produce a different outcome. Obvious verifiability problems, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Edit comments like "To whoever doesn't want to see this page, it will be added as fast as you can delete it" and article content like "Trust us, we know what we're doing" suggest a WP:POINT challenge to policy and justify protection if necessary. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As noted below, I agree with your conclusion but disagree strongly with the following part of your reasoning: "Obvious verifiability problems, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball." The list is certainly verifiable as it now stands and a list of storm names (versus articles on individual storm names) is one of the specific example that WP:NOT gives as being encyclopedic in the very section you cite. To me, in this case, it is purely a matter of respecting the process, without prejudicing the right to create the article when the time is more appropriate. -- DS1953 22:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. Had I read the original AfD, I would have voted to keep the article, particularly since the names will become fixed in a few months. However, the article went through the AfD process fairly and there was a clear and reasoned consensus to delete, so I would honor the deletion. We will lose the history when the article is recreated, but there is not much originality in reciting a list of storm names, so that doesn't seem to be a great loss. On the other hand, I feel strongly that the article should not be protected from re-creation..There is no reason not to allow this article to be recreated once the retired names are known. The deletion arguments were based only on the timing of the article, not its content or ultimate spot in the encyclopedia. -- DS1953 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree on the protection part. I first thought it kept getting deleted because their was some user that didn't agree with it being on. After protection, I actually was lead to believe at the time the Owner of Misplaced Pages was protecting it, but obviosly since anyone can become an admin (properly known as a sysop), that wasn't the case. -- Eddie
That's beside the point. The fact that it didn't get immediately taken down testifies that not everyone is interested in having it deleted. As You can see, it point out that named are to be announced. -- Eddie 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know, someone just deleted it. Thanks! -- RattleMan 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Did You realize that the page pointed out the names are to be decided? I'm surprised that it survived this long, though. -- Eddie
  • Endorse close, keep deleted for now, but allow recreation. As a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I can assert that undeleting the list now is a bad idea, since the World Meteorological Organization has to meet in the spring to decide which names will be retired. Right now, everything is pure speculation. That said, after the meeting, it should be undeleted so the names can be adjusted—but until then, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Titoxd 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I protected the article due to the fact that it had been deleted a total of seven times, including 3 times in under an hour on the 21st November. If the consensus is to unprotect it then I (or another admin) can do so. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's counterproductive. I don't think the page is that offensive enough to merit banishment. Besides., the RfA took place while the 2005 season was in place. On the other hand, we don't need a page for 2012 until next year because we have the 2006 unchanged, though I'd wonder if anyone would be bothered with that being on. -- Eddie

James S. Putnam

Article was speedied for lacking sources and CSD A7, but a clear claim to fame was made and as far as I know lacking sources is no speedy criterion yet. I quote: "He ran a successful racing stable with great success on the flat tracks of Idaho for three decades. He was also a renowned charriot racer, and once drove a team in the world championships." I think this was speedied to soon and deserves at least an AFD discussion. Overturn (possibly list on AFD). - Mgm| 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I must agree. While this article probably doesn't meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies it is not an obvious speedy candidate. Furthermore, the speedy tag was removed once by DESiegel who commented "'drove a team in the world championships' is a claim of notability IMO". While this might be deletable, it was contested in good faith and was therefore clearly not a speedy candidate. The replacement of the speedy tag was in error. Overturn and list on AFD. Rossami (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This was a straightforward mislabelling, and a copy-book out-of-process deletion. TheRingess (talk · contribs) labelled this "nn-bio", wrongly believing that the article had to establish rather than assert notability. Someone else deleted it without bothering to check. It may be listed for deletion on AfD, though I'd say that would be somewhat premature at this stage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Tony has spoken and the article has been restored. That's probably the right decision (although it is currently unverified) but do two out of process admin acts make add up to legitimacy? --Doc 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm don't think that restoring a clearly out-of-process speedy is out-of-process. I admit that Tony sometimes takes a broader definition of "clearly out-of-process" than I would. -- SCZenz 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ayu Khandro

The stub was deleted at 17:27 on 21 December 2005. The page is linked to from the article Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. It seems that the wiki would be better if the stub would be restored for further editing.--Klimov 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete, speedy deletion contested in good faith. This individual gets a number of relevant google hits and seems somewhat notable. Though the article appears rather short on info, it has enough context to be expanded. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For reference, the entire contents of the page at time of deletion was "Ayu Khandro was female teacher of Dzogchen.{{buddhism-stub}}". This single line fails in my mind to even reach the level of "stub". The article makes no claim that this person meets even the most basic of the criteria for inclusion of biographies. Given the overwhelming and continuing problems we've had with unsubtantiated vanity articles, I have to endorse the speedy-deletion of the article as it was in that state. But I have no objections to the re-creation of a more detailed article which provides enough evidence that we can fairly evaluate whether or not this person meets the recommended criteria for inclusion. Red-links should not be turned into blue-links until we actually have something to say. A redlink is, in my experience, more likely to draw in a really knowledgable editor who can create a quality first draft. Rossami (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted content was a one-sentence subsubstub with neither context nor content. If she's notable, she deserves a better article than that. If she's not, well, she's not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted/No prejudice against recreation. The one sentence alone fails to provide context, and so seems a textbook case of CSD A1. Anyone wishing to expand could almost certainly would recreate a similar sentence easily. Xoloz 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion of the substub. I echo the sentiments voiced above by others in this matter. - Mgm| 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion but absolutely no reason why a more substantial article cannot be created on the same topic. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Replaced a recreated redirect page with a new artice with context and content. Thanks very much to all for the discussion.--Klimov 17:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, what discussion? It seems Tony Sidaway overruled the discussion and restored the article. --Doc 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As usual, Mr. Sidaway's action was irrelevant and of no use. Klimov recreated a legitimate stub a few hours later. Waiting patiently and Mr. Sidaway do not go together well. Xoloz 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And apparently looking at the article history and you don't go together well either - Tony made the article into a redirect to the more notable topic, as is appropriate for articles on highly obscure facets of a larger topic. This was absolutely a sane call, and your blanket dismissal of Tony's actions as "irrelevent" smacks of bad faith. Phil Sandifer 03:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-21

OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood

Greetings. I was granted access to the page OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood by the sysop Cryptic that have been deleted a month ago to make sure the new reference link I found as a result of using Hotbot web search is unmentioned there. This article is about a Snoop Dogg album, that is co-produced by west coast fellow rapper Daddy V.The new cited page would be the westcoast2k's news of October, 2004. This internet site mentioned on the West Coast hip hop Wikipage as one of the trustable West Coast information sources. The main problem in the debate (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood) was the lack of adequate external link. Please undelete. Thank you Lajbi 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-admins will want to know that the sole content as deleted was a track listing and an infobox revealing it to be 45min 07 secs long. External link lack wasn't mentioned in that AfD debate, and the link you offer doesn't establish that anything close to a million copies have been sold — the word million doesn't appear on the page. Indeed, neither does the title of the album. I'm not yet persuaded that this link offers any new information or resolves the problems cited in the AfD debate (which is more than just the nomination). If anything, the section of the page titled "Daddy V "OG TV 2" Soundtrack" reveals it's not a Snoop Dog album but a Daddy V one, and provides no information beyond marketing hype and a track listing. Keep deleted, pending the provision of better justification. -Splash 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This was an obvious error. amd a very serious one. We don't delete articles about Snoop Dogg albums just because they can't be found on AllMusic. I'm undeleting this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If Snoop Dogg is a major artist, wouldn't all of his actual albums be found on Allmusic? I don't think Misplaced Pages should be writing articles on low-budget bootlegs or mixtapes (especially since they are illegal anyway). --FuriousFreddy 13:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Discussion terminated by Tony Sidaway (again): article restored by Tony, deleted by Splash, then recreated once more by Tony . --Doc 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's gone again. It's back. Keep deleted, maybe userfy, until the article has an introductory paragraph to go with the infobox. From what one can gather from User:Lajbi's talk page, he is an avid collector of Snoop Dogg's work whose articles are sometimes way too stubby. Pilatus 02:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Deletion policy is that deletion is for things that shouldn't have an article at all. Your complaint is editorial, which is probably an abuse of the deletion process - David Gerard 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We routinely delete one-sentence sub-stubs. Now with this particular album/mixtape/whatever thing there are serious problems with verifiability. The westcost2k link doesn't mention the recording; the HMV Japan link says it's a DVD. Pilatus 14:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) If you must undelete this it (and its close friend OGTV - From Tha Hood to Hollywood) ought to be discussed together with stack of tapes that is on AfD right now. I'm really not convinced that this isn't stuff that someone sells from the back of his van. Pilatus 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How are we supposed to add an introductory paragraphy while it's being kept deleted? Kappa 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and expand - Snoop Dogg is pretty famous, why would we not have an article on this album? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I swore I wouldn't blow my top here again, but this comes close. A Snoop Dogg album article is to stay deleted because of "process"? This is a perfect example of process (bureaucracy for the sake of it) over product (writing an encyclopedia and including obviously notable things). Undeleting - David Gerard 11:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, Snoop Dogg album. Kappa 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted'. It's not a real album. From what I can gather, it's a bootleg/mixtape of some sort. I doubt that Snoop Dogg officially had anything to do with this unofficial release; his name is probably added to it so that this "Daddy V" guy can sell these CDs out of the trunk of his car and over the internet. We don't need Misplaced Pages articles on illegal bootlegs and mixtapes, since (a) they are illegal and (b) anyone can make them. All of the Snoop Dogg articles are in an extreme state of disrepair at the moment, and are filled with not only fancruft, but articles on illegal bootlegs and mixtapes that should not be covered here.--FuriousFreddy 13:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What has legality go to do with it, we have articles on all kinds of criminal activities. Anyway this is a soundtrack of a DVD which is on sale at legit outlets like hmv.co.jp. . Kappa 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Show me where the movie is available. Find it in the IMDb. If you find it, write a solid article on it and merge the tracklisting for the soundtrack into it, because there apparently isn't much else you can say about the record except that it exists.--FuriousFreddy 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been deleted by user FuriousFreddy again. So what next?? I don't find Wikiguide pages that deal with such a case. Lajbi 16:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • for those who voted here please visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1.Debate is not over yet Lajbi 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, not a real album. Radiant_>|< 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-20

The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts

I speedy deleted these three articles about short stories after another user tagged them "self-published story by a Wikipedian whose biography is also being speedied". All had previously been deleted by User:Lucky 6.9 on December 10 - he cited "vanity/possible copyvio" as the reason - and were written by the author Peter Treviño (aka. User:PeterGay), who had his autobiography moved to the user space and then speedy deleted. I felt I was right in these deletions, but the author left me a message here requested undeletion. I'd like to hear what other users feel is the best course of action. Thanks. Harro5 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's hardly a copyvio. However, it is only for sale through lulu.com, which is a site for free self-publishing (and it scores a pretty bad sales rank in there). So yes, it's definitely vanity. I'd invoke the snowball clause and say keep deleted. Radiant_>|< 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Though not something that really fits the speedy criteria perfectly, this is still a common-sense delete and would not have any reasonable chance to pass AfD. Self-published stuff rarely gets kept. It's hard to Google "Gay Ghost", being also the name of a DC Comics character, etc, but "Next Gay Ghost" scores just 8 Google hits: 2 on Misplaced Pages and the rest on lulu.com where the book is sold. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Self-published material, and admitted vanity content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:44, Dec. 20, 2005
  • Please Undelete. I am Peter Treviňo, the author of "The Gay Ghost Trilogy." I have been using Misplaced Pages for a long time and have found it a very helpfull and thorough service. So, when I had my books published (on my own, through Lulu.com -- and yes I have sold only a few books; but the first book has only been available for barely two months -- the publication date is Oct. 18, 2005) I thought I would contribute to Misplaced Pages as an expansion of their (your) collection of information. I thought perhaps it would help the sale of my books, yes the thought did cross my mind; but I would hardly consider Misplaced Pages a source for advertisement -- who would search Misplaced Pages to find their next book to buy? I did however registered with "Google" for advertisement purposes and if you Google "The Gay Ghost" you'll find my book as the fourth or fifth listing and "The Next Gay Ghost" as the tenth listing. I also listed my book with Amazon.com but it will not appear until after three more weeks. I respect Misplaced Pages for the wonderful service you are providing for all and request that my listings be reinstated; but if you need for my books to be reviewed in the New York Times "Books In Review" before being included in Misplaced Pages then I will respect your decision and wait until I am rich and famous. Thank you for letting me express my opinion in these pages. Peter Treviňo (User:PeterGay) New York
  • comment Misplaced Pages does not require an NY Times review, but it does require soem indication of notability, some published source that commetns on these books, for example. Strictly speaking this was not a peroper speedy, these should have been taken to AfD. But there is no chance, IMO that AfD would conculde anything but delete. I won't endorse an improper speedy, but I'm not going to make a fuss over this one, either. DES 00:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Books are commonly kept if they sold 5000 copies or more, which these individual books haven't, they also didn't have any bestseller status on Amazon, B&N or any other book seller site (including Lulu), so I think deletion is best until at the very least a significant number of sales can be shown. Would prefer some professional reviews too. - Mgm| 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group

I would like to understand better why the Fortune Lounge Group article keeps on being deleted, as I have tried as much as possible to re-edit the article so that it is less promotional. It would be nice for the Group to feature in the Wiki and I do not mind re-editing the material once again, but I do not understand the grounds for deletion.

I see you have a number of online casinos and poker rooms listed in the Misplaced Pages and these articles have external links so if this is not ideally the factor for deletion - please could you give me some tips as to how we can feature in the wiki without breaking the editorial rules per se.

I'd really like some feedback and will await a timeous response. You can email me at matthewa@fortunelounge.com

  • Support undeletion - this is a very popular and well known group. The only issue in the AFD discussion was advertising. Whether it was notable was not an issue, as it is a very notable group. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. If someone wants to write an NPOV treatment of this, they're free to do so without having to undelete the blatant advertising that was the content of this article previously. android79 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The point was that an NPOV treatment of it was already written (2nd version) but was speedy deleted as "recreation of previously deleted content". IMO that's wrong. I am happy to write my own NPOV version with advice from User:Fortunelounge if that is appropriate, but would like a reassurance that it would not be able to be speedy deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The second version used the same promotional language as the first – it just didn't use the same amount. I'd call that a valid speedy. If it's not a substantially-similar recreation, then it can't be speedied under that criterion. Go ahead and attempt an NPOV treatment. I'll put it on my watchlist and also keep an eye on this discussion. android79 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with android; prepare a new NPOV article and it can not be legitimately speedied. -- DS1953 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep deleted; the 2nd version was appropriate and contained relevant factual information about the group. Zordrac can help provide a NPOV from the 2nd version and all that we ask is that you mention a few reasons as to why the brands stand out i.e. what makes them the most established, notable, etc. I hope that we can gain assurance that it won't be speedied, but having got no straight answers, I'm gonna' just hope for the best... -- User:Fortunelounge
  • Endorse, if a good article can be written there's nothing stopping someone from recreating it. But there's no reason to undelete the history that contained advertising. —Locke Cole 11:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the article, although *SADLY* the spam filter prevents the 2 most important references from displaying. I did a nowiki and made it clear what they are referring to. I am sure that you will agree that it is unbiased. It seems that, on top of being the world's largest online casino group, they are also notable, since September 2005, of being embroiled in a spam controversy, and may soon cease to exist. There's a lot of evidence that this was done by 3rd party spammers, but they are being blamed for it. This is very notable indeed, and almost warrants a current event tag. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-19

Webcest

I speedy deleted this article as a repost of previously deleted content, but User:Gorman claims it has become notable since it was first created, so I'm posting this here for review. - Mgm| 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted article starts out "Webcest is a nelogism..." and frankly goes downhill from there. Most of the article is complaining about it being deleted from Misplaced Pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - We debate the merits of neologisms created a quarter-century ago. Neologisms created 4 months ago shouldn't even ping our radar. That's why we have Wiktionary and the Urban Dictionary. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete - Obvious I was going to say that, but let me refute those statements: I have seen nelogisms on this site that were created far less than 25 years ago: example, 1337; and many articles that have been badly written. If you're going to argue to keep it deleted because I wrote it in about a half hour then you've obviously been blindly ignoring half the articles on this website. Off the record, I don't think I care half as much as you do but I'm wondering why you care at all. It's a short article taking up about 135k on your servers about the existence of something. Gorman 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse and keep deleted. If it has become more notable, somebody should probably tell the Internet about it because it hasn't heard yet. Ten Google Groups results for webcest, nine of which seem to be the same ad for the same porn site. 565 Google results, which doesn't exactly impress me. Compare to 1337, which, without accounting for variances in spelling, scores nearly eight million Google hits and 133,000 on Google Groups. My friend, I know 1337, and you are no 1337. Lord Bob 00:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, so webcest is supposed to describe anything disgusting on the internet? Have I got that right? What sort of evidence can you point me to that would indicate notability? I mean, I can see the deleted article and it actually talks a good bit about itself—the article talks about the article. That's a bad sign when it comes to notability. But I'd be happy to hear any solid claims for notability. Everyking 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:45, Dec. 20, 2005
  • Endorse and Keep deleted I see no evidence that this neologism is even in widespread use no less long enough use to be notable — Falerin 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted still appears to be a non notable neologism. Jtkiefer ---- 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, keep deleted. The main content is about how the article was deleted from here, and claiming that it has 565 Google hits. Come on, even I get more google hits than that. Do I want an article about myself? No. And I shall speedy it if I see it. As for the subject of this article, it is still a non-notable neologism, so there really isn't anything to overturn an AFD. Titoxd 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry_Roper

This article was posted by a new user Jack Houlihan. It was put up for CSD by User:RHJesusFreak40 and deleted by User:R. fiend as an "A7". This was the first article created by this user and, based on the edit history, it looks like he spent some time on it. In response to a welcome message from User:Sango123, Houlihan left this message, identifying the subject as "a well-known Chicago-based patent attorney." Since non-admins cannot view deleted content, I don't know what the deleted article looks like, but since the creator of the article seems to have made a reasonable assertion that the person is notable (and has not received any explanation for the deletion of his article), I request that we undelete and AfD the article. -- DS1953 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-18

Gtplanet

My apologies to Johnleemk for putting this in his User Page. I will repeat here.

You recently deleted an article called "Gtplanet", as a "non-notable website". In fact, although the article was originally created by a member not affiliated with the staff of the site (and thus "vanity" is entirely justified as a claim), the site is THE LARGEST resource for the MOST POPULAR game on the MOST POPULAR console on the market. I do hope that, in light of this information, you reverse this decision (and retitle it so that the capitals are in the right place - it ought to have been GTPlanet). I do not know if this is the most appropriate place to discuss this, but no others were immediately apparent.

I will elaborate further. The site is dedicated to the Gran Turismo series of games which, as I rightly stated, is the most popular game on the most popular console (Playstation 2, if you're unaware). The GTPlanet site is the largest site dedicated to this game series and as such at least merits a short article to this end. The Alexa ranking confirms this.

Further to this, the WP:WEB article indicates that a "notable" website is one which has "been the subject of national or international media attention" (one of three conditions noted) and/or have "a forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community". GTPlanet has a forum base of nearly 83,000 members currently, with almost 2 million posts made during its existence, the site owner was interviewed earlier this year on RadioITG (), a US national medium, and there was a write-up in the May 2002 issue of Sport Compact Car magazine (bizarrely), a US national publication (I'm afraid I cannot provide a web reference for this, so if anyone gets the magazine and has an archive of it, feel free to look it up. It's in the Webside section). This would indicate that the site meets two of the three criteria - any ONE of which must be met - for "notability".

I DO have a Misplaced Pages account, but am not using it for this edit - I am also a member at GTPlanet, with the same username, with a reasonably high-profile and do not wish this to appear as anything "official" from GTPlanet (since I am NOT a member of staff there) or a conflict of interest. I should add that the original article was not created by me - though it was edited three times by me to make it more fluent and useful - and that none of the staff at the site know anything about this. Thank you.

unsigned nomination made by user:84.68.143.164. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet.
  • Endorse decision (keep deleted). I see no process problems with this decision though the nominator does give us some new information here. The forum size was presented late during the AFD decision but failed to persuade anyone to change their opinion. The site's Alexa ranking shows brief spurts of interest but spends most of it's time off the chart. Given that pattern of traffic, I think the membership criterion may not apply. I definitely think that a single radio interview on RadioITG is insufficient for inclusion. Rossami (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AfD Undecided leaning toward keep deleted There's a definite tendency not to keep forum articles, and I think the main concern isn't necessarily a small size of audience (many forums have membership into the thousands or tens of thousands) but the fact that there's rarely anything encyclopedic to be said about them. Most forum articles, as a result, tend to be packed with trivia of absolutely zero interest to anyone outside the forum (tom54534 got made an admin, dick54543 is a troll, harry423423 left in a big huff, etc.). So, I invite the nominator to provide an outline of what content might reasonably fill a full-length article about this forum. Examples: Has the forum influenced the games on which it is based? Have the designers taken any members' suggestions and incorporated them into the series? Has it broken any exclusive news related to the games? Did the forum pioneer any innovations or ideas which were later used by other forums (such as Slashdot's comment-moderation system)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Updated: Though I'm still not completely certain this can be made into a full-sized article, there are enough good points presented (below) to at least warrant a revisitation of the issue to determine a better consensus (the original AfD had only 3 delete votes anyway). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Valid points all. I will address them, if I may.

Rossami's point on Alexa ranking first. While it is true that on outright Alexa ranking alone, GTPlanet falls outside the top 100,000, in terms of topic-specificity, it's right there at the very top. Consider, for a moment, if you will, the topic matter. The Sony PS2 has shifted 70 million units (with its predecessor nudging 80 million), compared to its rivals' 10 million a piece. The highest selling game series on these consoles is, indeed, the Gran Turismo series, at 38 million units shifted in total - this compares with the highest selling game of all time, Super Mario Brothers, at 40 million units.

Compare the Alexa rankings of all sites which are exclusively based on the Gran Turismo series:
Gran Turismo By The Numbers - 2,658,965
Goldjunkies - 1,925,113
GTWeb - 1,654,077
GT Racing Point - 1,648,716
GranTurismoX - 1,409,479
GTTimes - 1,392,199
Gran Turismo World - 515,294, and this is the official affiliate site, a flyer for which is distributed in the game box!

GTPlanet has them all beaten at 111,355, thus justifying my claim for it being the largest site dedicated to the most popular game on the most popular console.

However, how accurate ARE Alexa rankings? Alexa calculates site rankings based on users with the Alexa toolbar or dataminer installed on their computer. I don't know about anyone else, but my Spyware-killer nukes Alexa every time it tries to come near my computer - as with any good geek (I admit it. I'm not ashamed!). Given the subject material of the site, it is reasonable to expect a high geek-to-human ratio visiting the site. This makes for a highly computer-literate userbase and such a clientèle is more likely to not have Alexa anywhere near their computer - so the typical user's visits to GTPlanet will not be registered for counting and subsequent ranking with Alexa.


Andrew Lenahan's points next. You ask about the forum - GTPlanet is more than just a forum site. The main area of the site is a complete library of resources for Gran Turismo. File databases (car lists, track lists and the like, as befits such a game), videos, screenshots, a fastest laptime database (which is, admittedly, not as good as other Gran Turismo time databases out there, but still exists) are all available for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th game in the series (the links I have provided all relate to the 4th game. The first game predates the site by 3 years and is not generally catered for save for within the forums). It is, as the site claims to be, "the most comprehensive GT resource on the web".

You ask if the site has broken any news regarding the games. Certainly. With members positioned within the gaming industry, we have received and disseminated press releases with frightening speed. We have also, unfortunately, been responsible for one of the largest hoaxes in Gran Turismo history, whereby a "car wish list" for the 4th game posted in our forum was mistaken for a genuine car list release and circulated round the world. We kept getting bitten by that one, as new members would sign up and say "Hey! I've got the official GT4 car list!" and then make an 800 line post which was all too familiar.

You ask if the site has in any way influenced the games. This is a lot harder to prove. Companies tend not to openly admit to external influences on products as this can lead them down the path to Intellectual Property disputes. However, it is certainly known that members of Sony Computer Entertainment and Polyphony Digital browse the site - whether or not there is anything more than a coincidental relationship between a suggestion on the site and the appearance of any feature in the game is impossible to determine.

(Incidentally, I apologise for the clunky links in the original text. I've now amended them.)

(And, additionally, if the article is reinstated, it needs to be correctly capitalised. It's GTPlanet, on oversight on behalf of the article creator)

  • Leaning undelete and AfD only if the article can be kept clean of stupid forumtriviacruft - who talks about who on what forum, etc. That stuff is wholly uninteresting and wholly unencyclopedic. If the nominator's information is verifiable, it sounds like this site might be notable as a fansite because it has activities outside of the forum - i.e., file downloads, reviews, videos, etc. None of the peacock wording "biggest, best, most comprehensive," yadda yadda yadda, is really independently verifiable, so that is irrelevant, but if it is as large and diverse as the nominator says, and includes more than just a Web forum, I would say it at least deserves another shot. FCYTravis 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your points are, again, valid (and you may note that, although my IP may have changed, I am the same person). "Peacock wording" is certainly an interesting way of putting it. However I'd suggest that "most comprehensive" IS independantly verifiable by simply checking the other sites I listed. Though I'm a denizen at many of them they are, for the most part, "only" forum sites, whereas GTPlanet is "also" a forum site, with the many resources I listed sitting as a reference tool alongside the large community there. Furthermore, GTPlanet is one of the few cross-platform sites, providing an ongoing reference for the earlier Playstation games - albeit in a solely forum-based manner for the original game as, as I said earlier, the first game predated the site by some years. "Most comprehensive" would naturally imply "largest" too - the one with the most data...

If anything, "most popular" is the easiest to prove (by the Alexa rankings I posted) but the least accurate in a long-term project, as popularity ebbs and flows over time.

I take your point - and Andrew Lenahan's - about general forum crapola and there is next-to-no chance of this cropping up in any article about GTPlanet. Ever. We have a surprisingly sane community there - though I didn't know that harry423423 had gone in a big huff... He always seemed so.. normal... - and anyone likely to spam this article with those kinds of "niceties" tends not to remain a member at GTP for very long.

    • Comment - Fair enough stated, re "peacock words." I want to commend you for making a well-argued, unemotional and coherent case for the article's undeletion. If only more people appealing on WP:DRV were as civil and straightforward as you are. Attitude counts for a lot. FCYTravis 21:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist (fair disclosure - I voted "weak keep" on the AfD). While I think the article was deleted with no clear process violation, there were only 4 votes (3 deletes and 1 keep). While 75% is a "consensus" of the people expressing an opinion during the AfD posting, 3 delete votes is a pretty small number. With that small base, a single vote from an editor who had contributed to the article would have shifted the percentage to 60/40 and two votes would have created a 50/50 balance. I would let User:84.68.143.164 take a fair shot at explaining on AfD why this article should not be deleted. -- DS1953 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Relist due to new information — Falerin 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Halo.Bungie.Org

I don't use Misplaced Pages much and I'm not very familiar with the protocols but after looking over the Notability page I believe that halo.bungie.org fits those requirements. It has been featured in national news articles on mroe then one occasion, the CBS articles on Video Game Violence is just the most recent. The web page has well over 5,000 unique posters over it's entire lifetime and there are ten times that amount of viewers who don't post but lurk the site, solely for it's immense news database.

I noticed in the deletion debate someone said that Hbo didn't have an Alexa page, but it most definetly does. According to Alexa it isn't the msot well known site out there, but as fan Sites go, it's definetly extremely high on the list. The Elder Scrolls fan site The Elder Vaults doesn't even hit a mere fraction of what HBO hits and it has a listing. Same goes for The Leaky Cauldron Hbo has about the same traffic says Alexa .

Also, Hbo is up for VE's fansite of the year award. and it raised over 10k for the Katrina relief through special edition Halo items with the Blow Me Away auctions, this isn't an isolated incident, so Hbo does have an effect on things outside of it's own community. A side note, Bungie.org has many exclusive interviews with employees of Bungie Studios and has quite a few Heads Up from the developers that are easily noticible in the actual Halo 2 and Halo Pc game.

All these credentials seem to fit it into the requirements, maybe not exactly but it seems to me what it lacks is made up for in it's age and members. The Halo Franchise is one of the largest video game Franchises of the present and it seems fit the Web Site that has documented all this is also notable.--DanteThePoet 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door)

Sj deleted this with the reason "nonuseful redirect", which is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The page also has history containing valid content. —Guanaco 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

This article wouldn't be recreated constantly if there wasn't a need for it. The talk page is full of well-argued reasons for keeping the page. Yes, some articles in the past were deleted because they were copy/pastes, but how is that justification for the deletion of the many properly-written versions of this article that were made as well?

There is no reason to be concerned about whether an article is "notable" enough, or simply "distasteful" (except in the case of vanity pages, of course): check out Wiki is not paper.

Also, on the AfD page, the page was deleted by a consensus of 4-3 votes in favor of deletion. That's not a consensus. I haven't seen simple majority as a rule on AfDs on Misplaced Pages before.

Another way to think about it: by NOT having a well-written article there, it invites vandals to write their own worthless articles, creating more work for admins anyway.--Aleron235 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Not if the article is protected empty, as it should have been until someone (:cough:User:Tony Sidaway:cough:) unprotected it. FCYTravis 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, Overturn Brian Peppers is a legitimate internet phenomenon, and well more than enough people know about him for him to be considered a person of note. He is a significant meme, and therefore deserving of his own page on wikipedia. While he may not personally have any political or other influence, his picture and the circumstances surrounding it have become popular and the subject of much discussion and other content on the internet. --Elfer 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted, Unlist We discussed this just two weeks ago, and the verdict was an (almost) unanimous Keep Deleted. If vandals keep putting it back, the page can be protected from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Each time it's been protected, Tony's unprotected it. -Splash 15:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's odd. Does he ever say why? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "No valid reason to protect this page" and "Still no reason to protect this page". I think he probably disagrees with the AfD or something. -Splash 15:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree with Tony. Despite contentions that the subject is non-notable, the deletions have resulted from copyright violations and personal attacks. Certainly, it's appropriate to speedily delete recreations that duplicate the language or spirit of the previously deleted versions, but I don't believe that it's appropriate to demand that editors participate in a special process (either here or on the article's talk page) before attempting to author a legitimate article. If/when that occurs, Brian Peppers' notability (or lack thereof) can be debated via a new AfD discussion. —Lifeisunfair 16:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone were to write an even remotely sensible article in its place that offered new information, then it would be properly reconsidered. If that's not done, then people shouldn't be suprised if it is re-deleted as either being an open attack or dribbling nonsense. I don't see the relevance of much of the nomination here. -Splash 15:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've no idea why the June version of this article was deleted rather than simply being rewritten to remove the more garish and bizarre stuff. I'll create a brief stub; continued attempts to create this article suggest that there is a need for something here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, Mr. Sidaway might have a point (though, as usual, unprotecting with sly, supremely subjective reasons is about the worst way on earth to go about establishing the point in a reasonable manner.) Given the original VfD was six months ago, based mostly on copyvio concerns, and subsequent AfDs have dismissed recreations per se, it is probably time for an AfD on his stub (which Nlu has thankfully begun.) That said, I again advise Mr. Sidaway that his methods are more likely to win antagonism for his cause, simply for being unilateral and anti-consensus. Endorse this recreation, and its AfD. Xoloz 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uphold and Keep Deleted. This person's sole claim to fame is a physical defect that makes him appear freakish. That's simply not enough. Otherwise, we should all through our high school yearbooks and scan and post the photos of the kids we considered ugly. Jtmichcock 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uphold and Keep Deleted. I disagree in general with immortalizing internet fads. What's next, have a separate page for each Henny Youngman one-liner? Flyboy Will 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Overturn. The simple fact that Brian Peppers has become a Internet phenomenon should keep the page. Maybe we could include in the eventual article "the phenomenon has been greatly hyped up because of polarised disagreement in whether he should have his own article on Misplaced Pages." or "The great disagreement on Misplaced Pages has increased his Internet fame." ..... Honestly I believe there should be an article on Misplaced Pages about him. If any other remotely famous person can have at least their own article space why shouldn't he? However from what I'm hearing the original article is not up to scratch, but it's the best we've got just now. Perhaps someone should write a candidate article? Even a stub's better than nothing. A protection from creation is definitely not the way to go. Just because he has some honestly vile facial features does not mean that he does not deserve a place in an encyclopaedia. <br\>--★Ukdragon37★ 20:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, restore the old history. Everyking 21:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - FCYTravis 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Care to tell why? Also, I support your edit of "Brian peppers is a man", I was thinking the same thing but couldn't find the right words.--Aleron235 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • For the same reason I've said over and over again. I don't believe some guy who spent 30 days in jail for a sex offense and has a body deformity is encyclopedic. It reeks of the stupid third-grade games kids play on the schoolyard. "OMG HES UGLY LOLLL!!!!!" Pointless, moronic and unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Whoever says he's notable for his crime is beating around the bush, he's notable for being an internet phenomenom (see also: numa numa). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and overturn - As well as keep new article. ust becuase the first time that this was deleted, perhaps we should delete Soham murders? Hmmm.... I think we know the answer. Becuase if the Soham murders deserve an article, then SO DOES Brian Peppers. --Hillhead15 12:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusion but I do disagree with your reasoning. The Soham murders totally dominated the British press in August 2002 and is a very prominent case of horrific child murder, whereas Brian Peppers is a nonentity sex offender who is only famous because of his unusual appearance. David | Talk 12:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and overturn I'd say he deserves an article. Simple. --Kilo-Lima 16:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and overturn If we have an article on the Goatse man we can have one on Brian Peppers. Rob 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and keep in AfD. However, only parts of the history that aren't copyvio should be kept. --Deathphoenix 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete some how my vote vanished in the revisions. Like it or not I have recieved multiple emails about this person. He was passed arround enough for snopes to do an investigation, and his google hits are quite high. In other words he is notable. — Falerin 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Whatever notability this man has results from callous attempts to exploit his appearance for entertainment. Create articles about circus freaks who choose to become public figures. This man has never sought the spotlight. Durova 20:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Durova, among others. Let snopes be snopes and wikipedia be an encyclopedia. -- DS1953 20:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No point in debating this. Tony Sidaway has already decided. It has been recreated and sent to AfD. --Doc 21:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, I did nothing that any other editor could not have done, once the deletedpage template was removed. I wrote a new article of the same name. The new article was then listed by someone for deletion, and then kept with a very large majority opposing deletion of the newly created article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, he's got a good point. Nothing wrong with that. -- SCZenz 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Stanley

This article should not have been deleted as no copyright violation is possible. Both the article and the source material (www.mariahstanley.com/bio.htm) were created by the same person: me. Therefore, infringement is not possible.]].

--User:Therealski 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I quote from the source website:
""The little girl with the big voice" is a trademark, registration pending - United States Patent & Trademark Office, of Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions and may not be used in any way without the express written consent of the owner/s. Storm Wind Productions and MariahStanley.com are trademarks of Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions and may not be used or reproduced in any way without the express written consent of the owner/s. All content of this site subject to copyright and is the property of Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions and may not be used or reproduced in any way without the express written consent of the owner/s."
The question is, is a Misplaced Pages editor named Therealski really speaking for the website? How do we know? Melchoir 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, even if true, having written something doesn't mean you necessarily own the copyright. The rather strongly-worded copyright notice states that "Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions" owns the copyright, and probably don't sound to keen on releasing it under the GFDL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted If therealski is Ms. Stanley, or otherwise authorized to release copyright, she must follow the procedure for doing so. Till then, copyvio. Xoloz 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the article has been re-written. It is no longer a copy of the information from the website. Question now is notability. ERcheck 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
After reading Splash's comments below and examining website in question for copyvio (and imdb), I agree with Splash that the main paragraph is still a copy from the website. I withdraw my weak keep vote. Notability of subject is questionable (even with an imdb entry). ERcheck 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It most certainly is the same text that was deleted. I've just chopped off the really nasty vanity bits. It's taken straight off IMDb if nowhere else.-Splash 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The history of Mariah Stanley indicates that User:Thryduulf has received an email. I'm not completely satisfied with accepting a random incoming email as a proof of permission (I'd prefer it to be in response to an outgoing one to a relevant address), but the IMDB page linked from the article includes the same text and claims to have been written by the (rather vain) teenager herself. The self-writte IMDb page is probably grounds for deletion on its own. -Splash 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So, are i being told that wikipedia does not allwes quotes, or that i must re-arenge the quotes?--Striver 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You appear to have asked a peculiar question of the wrong debate. Where did you mean to be? -Splash 15:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine)

This article should not have been deleted in the first place. It was given a copyvio sign by sombodty with a long track of adding articles i creat to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of notable Muslim reports.

The articte does not have any copyrighted material, all quotes are from scholars of old and new, and that is not copyrighted. It is true that i got the quotes from a web-site, but that does not mean that the one that collected the quotes have copyright over them. If that would be that case, nothing would be allowed to be quoted more than once.

The actual text from the article i got the quotes from are not included in the article that was deleted, it was totaly re-writen. --Striver 06:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The hell it was. Keep deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted, only on the basis that so much of the nomination is legally incorrect. The website has copyright over the arrangement of the quotations, the authors (and their assigns) maintain copyright over the quotations individually. Quotations could be used under fair use, as long as the use qualified; the arrangement very likely cannot be copied under fair use, unless the article is a strangely web-inclusive meta-analysis of bibliography. Xoloz 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So, are i being told that WP does not permitt quoting, or that i must rearenge the quotes? --Striver 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
No. You're being told not to lie when you say that the article was "totaly re-writen" (sic) when even a casual look shows that it was not, and that even if it were, copyright protection extends to derivative works. —Cryptic (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Lie? Man, could you please give me a single sentance that is copyrighted in that article? If the quotes are a problem, then we can rearenge them or fix it to not be copyvio. Dont delet the entire article only because you think it quotes to much. --Striver 13:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The only sentences that aren't a copyvio of the the given source are the two in the lead, and I have no confidence whatsoever that they weren't taken from somewhere else. "Mustafaa as-Sibaa'ee was a eminent Palestinian scholar that lived with the Shi'a for a period and worked for rapproachment with them." is typical of your "total rewrite". —Cryptic (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-16

Arthur Prieston

Special:Undelete/Arthur Prieston

Is it possible to undelete the page on "Arthur Prieston"? Mr. Prieston wrote the original article, but it was tagged for copyright violation and he did not respond in time. Or, would it be possible to get a copy of the deleted text? I am the communications director for Mr. Prieston's company and need a copy of this text. Thank you. User:Samantha Bronson

  • Comment - I've moved this from the content review section. Special:Undelete shows it was speedied as a copyvio. --- Charles Stewart 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the text was almost a word-for-word copy of the biography found here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Provided the copyvio issue is sorted out, undelete and list on AfD. --- Charles Stewart 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I never got a peep in reply to my confirmation request. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if the copyvio is sorted out, I am strongly inclined to argue to keep deleted based on the principles in WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Based on the versions presented, I am unconvinced that this person meets the recommended standards for inclusion of biographies. If he is famous enough for an article, someone other than himself or his communications director should be writing it. The inherent bias of an autobiography is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Therefore, if the copyvio is sorted out, immediately list on AFD for community discussion. Note, however, that I have no objections if the user wants to login and put this on his userpage. Rossami (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted unless email received from someone with the necessary authority. Note that this wasn't speedied and that email confirmation was sought. I don't really view this request as grounds enough to undelete since the email was previously ignored, and the requester has been left a message with instructions to send an email — any random on the internet could ask for material we can't give them otherwise. It's a bit weird that the communications director knows not what is on their own website, but there we go. -Splash 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Iff copyright is cleared, undelete and relist. Copyvios come before deletion review, but the resolution of that problem does not resolve all problems, as others above have said. Xoloz 23:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The requester can get what she indicates she needs by (1) looking at the copyright page link or (2) by asking her boss for a copy. If she feels that there should be an article on the subject, she can create a new page, without the old one being undeleted. ERcheck 02:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete The deletion was done speedily based on copyright violation. If it is established there was no copyright violation, then the deletion was inappropriate. If there are then grounds to delete for other reasons, so be it, but the proper process must be followed. Nfitz 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read the Special:Undelete link more carefully. It was not speedily deleted. It was left on WP:CP for 3 weeks during which time email confirmation was sought. Someone merely asserting that someone they work for wants it undeleted is obviously not a grant of permission. Mere assertion of permission-by-proxy would only conceivably apply if it had in fact been speedied. Which it was not. -Splash 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, it is a copyvio. I don't need to get farther down that road, do I? Titoxd 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-15

Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind and Battle_of_Uhud

Could someone copy Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind and Special:Undelete/Battle_of_Uhud, dated 20:50, 15 November 2005 to my talk page? --Striver 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind has not been deleted, or created. I have restored the non-copyvio revisions of Battle of Uhud, including the warring over the copyvio tag. I can't find the rewritten versions anywhere on Google, but it should be speedied if I have been mistake and not copied to a User talk: page. I figure the article coming back is better than your talk page?-Splash 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This would probably have been better off it were moved to a separate title before being undeleted; the history is now interlaced with that of the replacement article formerly at Battle of Uhud/Temp, making it a complete mess. —Cryptic (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh. I didn't look at the article, only the undelete view. However, I'm prepared to fix this if someone can help me with which revisions belong where. From looking at diffs, those on 6 Nov all belong to /Temp as do those from the move on the 19 Nov. The others all clearly belong to the original article. The edit with summary "Starting over" by FRS presumably belongs to the original article since the /Temp link kept coming and going with the copyvio notice. Presumably the same is true of the others up until the move. Does that sound right? -Splash 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-14

Shpants

Apologies if I am putting this in the wrong place. The page as originally created was a nonsense article about an invented neologism. During the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shpants, the article was improved to refer to Three quarter pants, an article which previously did not exist. User:Peyna and myself argued successfully that both Shants and Shpants should redirect to Three quarter pants as less popular variations of Three quarter pants, as they are not the same thing as Capri pants. The votes in the deletion were 5 deletions and 3 keeps/renames. However, all 3 of the keeps suggested an alternate to redirect to 3/4 pants, as did 1 of the deletions. The first 3 deletions were made prior to the article rewrite, and were based on the original nonsense page. Thus in effect we had a consensus to redirect to Three quarter pants. I was bold and simply put in a REDIRECT Three quarter pants, but this was wrongly speedy deleted by the only user who thought that the article should be deleted outright. I propose quite simply for the article to have a REDIRECT Three quarter pants in there. It is clearly an alternate name for 3/4 pants that is in use in that fashion. I suggest that the closer perhaps didn't note the alternates that were given, and may have thought that it was a consensus to delete, when it was actually a consensus to redirect. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I was the original nominator for deletion of the for the Shpants article. The article that I nominated had last been edited on October 17, 2005 (10:53). I am responding to this note only because of some inaccuracies directed at me and in the comment above. The note above says it was "wrongly speedy deleted by the only user who thought the article should be deleted outright". I take exception to the fact the it was "wrongly speedy deleted".
  1. Concerning speedy delete: I take exception to the adverb "wrongly". I did not do the deletion, just the nomination; and according to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, G4 ("Recreation of deleted material.") it was a proper nomination as the material went through an AFD vote. An administrator looked at the speedy delete nomination and did the deletion.
    I disagree. Speedy deletion only applies when the contents are the same. The contents were not the same, hence it should not have been speedy deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. AFD deletion: The administrator viewed the vote as a delete. The re-written article was created in Three quarter pants. Some discussion comments centered on the term "shpants" as a neologism. Though some delete votes were made before the re-write, the "neologism" comments for the term provide the reason for the vote and as such are valid delete votes. Not all of the keep/rewrites supported redirection. Some comments (including my own) indicated that a redirect for a neologism not really merited.
I disagree. Other than your comment, the remaining deletion comments focussed on the original nonsense content of the article, not on the name. You were the only person concerned about the name, hence effectively making it 4:1 in favour of redirection. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
So, this current deletion discussion, in my opinion, centers on the merits of including a "neologism" as a redirect. (BTW, my deletion vote does not apply to the newly re-written article, under its current name, just to having an article called "Shpants" for this topic). I do think this is the proper forum for Zordrac's to bring a discussion on the merits of the deletion/redirection. ERcheck 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the harm. There has been agreement to make Shants in to a redirect to Three quarter pants, and Shpants logically means "Short pants" just like "Shants" means "Short pants", which is what Three quarter pants are. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that someone might think of it as Shpants. There was agreement that the nonsense article claiming that 3/4 pants was made up in 2005 by some 13 year old was not encyclopaedic. However, there was also agreement that the term was a valid alternative to 3/4 pants. Everyone bar yourself agreed on that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question re: this current deletion discussion, in my opinion, centers on the merits of including a "neologism" as a redirect Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't a redirect simply a way of pointing a different reference (word, phrase, term for) to a single article, so that two or more articles aren't being written on the same topic? If something "merits" a redirect, then wouldn't it also merit an article if there wasn't another article to redirect it to? Or are there different criteria for redirects, like, a redirect is less important than an article? --Tsavage 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazingly, Shpants generates 8000 Ghits. Wow. I don't know anything about fashion, but I'd tend to think that merits a redirect, if all those hits refer to the same object. Xoloz 13:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In this case, I'm not sure that the speedy of the redirect was valid, unlike in a recent example. I'm not sure whether this is a neologism or not, but I did know that I hadn't come across the word. The reason for this is that it gets about 11000 Google.com hits but only 54 Google.co.uk hits. -Splash 14:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete the redirect; invalid speedy even if the AFD was legit, which is questionable. Would prefer undeleting rest of history as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (I speedied the redirect so of course I'm going to say) keep deleted. Afd consensus was clearly not to have an article or redirect at this title. Furthermore, those google hits are, so far as I can see, all from ephemeral sources, largely blog and forum posts. A search of Google Print finds zero permanent sources; this wouldn't even qualify for a dictdef in Wiktionary. Compare 569 for skort. If someone creates a legitimate article for slotted spoons at zxyyklskizz, we don't leave the made-up redirect behind when we move it. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Having looked at the discussion closely, only two people are clearly against redirecting (ERcheck and Satori, who both describe the term as a neologism), one person is clearly for it, one person specifically notes that they aren't opposed to it, and the other four have no clear opinion on the issue. How you interpret this as a "consensus" to delete the redirect is confusing, perhaps you could elaborate. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re mentions in print. Maybe Google's algorithms are kicking up new answers for Xmas: today, the fourth result for keyword "shpants" points to an article in a University of Maryland student newspaper, Sep 26, 2002: Shorts and pants? Shpants! --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete as a redirect. The VFD said nothing at all about such a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the AFD for Shpants was not about Shants, I did not vote on Shants. I see both as neologisms and therefore would say neither merits a redirect - my opinion is that both should be deleted. The central question in this debate is whether neologisms merit redirects to articles with accepted names. Not a good precedent. ERcheck 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted for exactly the above reason. Eusebeus 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Cryptic. But I have one question: Why are you oppressing those of us who use zkyyklskizzs? Nandesuka 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Cryptic, delete the redirect, and remove the references to "Shpants" in Three quarter pants unless the verifiability problems mentioned in the AfD are remedied. So far no evidence has been provided that "Shpants" are accepted terms in reasonably widespread use. (No, I don't think Ezra Dyer's personal blog counts). If it's real, provide a convincing source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Shpants: No hits in books.google.com. No hits in online search of last five years of The New York Times. Four hits, but all irrelevant, in www.a9.com with search limited to "books;" (they are all to books on Yiddish folk culture, and "shpant" (not shpants) occurs in some Yiddish-language passages.) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re mentions in print. The fourth Google result for keyword "shpants" points to an article in a University of Maryland student newspaper (a PRINT paper), Sep 26, 2002: Shorts and pants? Shpants! --Tsavage 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Dpbsmith's research. (ESkog) 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article deleted, but the redirect is not recreation of deleted content: The AfD asked that the reference be removed from the Three quarter pants article, as that had been put in there by the vandal/vanity author. Procedurally, I see a new redirect as fairly irrelevant and not recreation of deleted material. On the other hand, the article itself was an absolute bust and absolutely fit for deletion. It was a neologism, and a silly one, but I don't see why there is any discussion of a redirect going on here, as no one is advocating recreation or undeletion of the article, so far as I can tell. Geogre 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would establish a bad precedent to allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a method for the cultivation and dissemination of non-verifiable, unestablished neologisms. As you yourself have said, notability should bring articles to Misplaced Pages. Not the other way around. → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You should simply to a search engine search and read a few dozen entries to see whether this word "exists" beyond some tiny affiliation of shpants fetishists (or whomever those who imagine the word doesn't really exist think is then using it). It's obviously a "word", and Misplaced Pages, being so open and immediate and all, is a good place to find the...latest in the English language! --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL this is funny. I suppose you're going to say that all the hits for "Shpants", all saying it means Three Quarter Pants, are irrelevant? LOL. Just ludicruous. And now, what, I'm being called a vandal for quoting sourced claims? This just shows the idiocy of the "deletion review", which just seems to be a forum for admins to come in and pat each other on the back and say "well done" to each other. This is perhaps the silliest thing that has ever happened. Just a REDIRECT! No reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot over it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Relist (I take it this means, put it back on AfD or wherever this got started, so that this can be discussed again (properly).) There should be no administrative sanctions against shpants, as in "somewhat short pants". Specifically, there should be a redirect now, and it should be possible to create a separate article if developed into a separate topic. This is OBVIOUSLY a term that refers to something specific. If we can have the tired "regifting", we can have shpants. Even if you discount search engine hits that point to at least hundreds of instances of usage in this sartorial sense (as opposed to Yiddish), consider the simple fact that there is at least one citable case where the term shpants has been the subject of an article, published in print, in a US university student newspaper (in 2002). Why are we trying to deny the existence of this stupid word and all it stands for? --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-12

Bankable star

Before the change to the article on 2005-12-01 20:21 UTC there were 6 editors who said that this should be transwikied and deleted. After that change, 3 of those 6 editors (including the nominator) changed their minds, one further editor (Gurubrahma) clearly didn't read the article (because at the time it had already been expanded in the way that xe said it "could possibly be expanded") and said that it should be deleted because of its potential for vandalism (even though the article had never actually been vandalized at any point during its entire existence, and even though, by that rationale, we should delete George W. Bush), one further editor said that we should delete it because "it is an article about a survey" (like the many other articles about surveys that we have), and one further editor simply echoed the rationale of an editor who had looked at the significantly different article from before the change.

My partisanship with respect to the deletion of this article is up-front, having been expressed unequivocally in the original AFD discussion. ☺ I do not wish to imply any criticism of Johnleemk's closure. My only concern is that there might not have been enough discussion of the article as it stood after it was changed. I therefore only ask Deletion Review to consider whether this article should be sent back to AFD for further discussion and (one hopes) the opinions of more editors. Uncle G 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete if substantial changes were made to the article during the course of the AFD. It is worth obliging a request by an outstanding user to clarify this matter, without speculation as to whether people who wanted to delete the first version would still want to delete the second. Or, feel free to simply upload a new improved version; sources proving that this is a common phrase rather than one used in a single survey may satisfy some of the objections presented in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was one of those who wanted to delete the first version. I did notice the rewrite; while I wouldn't have commented on the afd if the article was in that state when it was nominated, I didn't think it was of much value, and I made a conscious decision not to alter my comment. The rewrite was a one-sentence dictdef leading into a full article about a specific survey, including that survey's results; at most, that would have belonged at Hollywood Reporter's list of bankable stars or something similar. Uncle G, I have all the respect in the world for you, but your efforts to save the article at this title weren't sufficient.

    That said, I was also surprised at Gurubrahma's and Hahnchen's comments; my best guess at an explanation is that they didn't realize that the article had been rewritten mid-afd, and thought that the previous voters considered the current version to be a dictdef. Specifically noting on an afd that you rewrote the article isn't tooting your own horn; it helps to stave off such misunderstandings.

    (Incidentally, I emphatically disagree with Christopher's assertion that merely showing "bankable star" to be a common phrase would be sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. Blue car is a very common phrase, with 486,000 google hits; nevertheless, it is and should remain a redlink.) —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Sorry, that was a stupid misinterpretation of what you meant by idiomatic based on not reading very closely. My point was that while I think this is definitely an encyclopedic concept, this might not be the best name, but then again it's not a bad name. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete/relist per Uncle G, who is conservative in this area. To dispute Cryptic mildly, "blue car" is only a "common phrase" in the strictest denotative sense of that term. "Blue car" occurs often, just like "white cat", but it has no special associations as phrase in itself. Contrast "white cat" with "black cat" if you are unsure what I mean. The latter has extensive associations as a phrase beyond its literal meaning, thanks to superstition. Xoloz 17:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! - Keep closure endorsed, without prejudice to renomination. 14:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Trieglofobia - kept deleted. 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised - kept deleted. 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Gay Nigger Association of America: "speedy concluded" by R. fiend with no consensus, reopened, re-concluded by Radiant with no consensus. General idea is that maybe we should wait 6 months before listing it again. Ashibaka tock 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Guillemots (band): re-created again; history undeleted; listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Guillemots (band) (2nd nomination) 07:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. List of Internet forum software, relisted on AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Internet forum software
  7. United States: speedy delisting; deletion was a technical problem, and already undeleted by a developer. 23:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Danish Pedophile Association: rewritten, history already undeleted. 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Moshzilla: undeleted and relisted. 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. SHOCKINIS kept deleted. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. List of non-fictional heroes deletion endorsed. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Right to exist taken to second afd, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Right to exist (2nd nomination). Kept. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science, List of Jewish scientists to WP:CP. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Thomasine Church history undeleted in User:Snowspinner's userspace. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Southern Ivies: was a notification-only listing. 04:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. List of Muslims in business: no consensus endorsed, discussion apparently continues elsewhere. 04:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Wang Sichao: already restored by deleting admin, on AfD 04:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

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.

Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

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

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 January 8}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 8}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 8|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

2005-12-27

Infosecpedia

AfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosecpedia, closed 12/24.

So, this article is about an online encyclopedia and handbook and wiki. It utterly fails WP:WEB by even the most liberal standards. It has accrued a grand total of 256 articles accross seven years. And in the AfD, an admin on Infosecpedia admitted "The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam)." It has a claim to fame in that Jimbo had something to do with it at one point... but the site is dead, tiny, and unvisited. The problem occured, initially with my half-assed nomination - hell, quarter-assed. Needless to say, I should have put all the above into the nom, but I just put "NN website," which was 1) true, and 2) hideously inadequate. That wasn't the only AfD I phoned in that day, for which I have made ammends. Anyway, the AfD was also bogged down by a user that was voting more against me, then looking at the page itself, and my frustrations with that user. Throw in militant inclusionists ("It exists"!... angry sigh), it was a mess for which I take the blame, and something got lost: that this article does not meet our standards of inclusion by a long shot. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Titoxd's decision, and I am thus not asking for it to be overturned (deleted), but overturned (relisted), with a proper nomination, which, pending the discussion here, I will fill out myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, this is an extraordinarily compelling DRV nomination. Personally, I lean toward keeping the site, because it has an Interwiki link and it is conceivable it might appear here. I do think the article should be updated to mention the thing is moribund, of course. Mr Gustafson's mea culpa is appreciated, there is new information here, and the debate was not ideal. I endorse the closure without prejudice against immediate renom. I do think someone other than Mr. Gustafson should handle renominating, however, to avoid unneeded negative animus from the article's supporters. Xoloz 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uphold AfD discussion - I sympathasise with Jeffrey's frustration, but the most cogent of the above facts did in fact come out in the AfD discussion. Had I participated in that AfD, I would have voted to redirect to List of wikis, where the site is mentioned. I'd be perfectly happy to see the site relisted for AfD, and I don't see why Jeffrey shouldn't try again: it was a no consensus, after all.--- Charles Stewart 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse WhiteNight 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-26

Template:User Capitalist

I have no idea why this template has been deleted. It seems absolutely ridiculous, and no reason has been provided by any administrator. There is no argument for why it should be deleted... so WHY has it been deleted? There is no good reason, therefore

Comment - I'm now confused as to how many decisions there have been... so in order to clarify my position above, I would like the template to be undeleted and returned to the state it was in this time last week. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 19:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete Merovingian's version which was deleted in honest error (the earlier version was validly speedied). Althought personally, I'd delete all sUCH pov flags. --Doc 20:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My $0.02. I originally created the template as a favor for a friend, who was using a userbox made out of html code (instead of a swanky template). I requested mine be deleted since he had apparently already created one of his own. Apparently I was wrong on the second part. Anyways, if people want to undelete it and use it, I have no problem with it.--Kross | Talk 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

This discussion has become very long. In order to improve the performance of the page and to reduce the incidence of edit-conflicts, this discussion has been moved to a sub-page. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy to read and participate in the discussion. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-25

Homespring

This was deleted about a year ago because the language was more or less dead. I have written a new, much faster, interpreter and a graphical debugger here. I have also improved the documentation to the point where I think it is usable. I believe that homespring is now more alive than most of the other esoteric languages that _do_ have pages so it would be nice to have it undeleted as a starting point for further edits/revisions. 203.173.0.180 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Homespring

2005-12-22

Various stub template redirects

These were all listed on WP:SFD, despite WP:RFD being the palce to go for redirects. The SFD people in general dislike redirects that may be useful but do not follow their conventions. (Furthermore, the ensuing redirect is deleted by default when a stub template is moved, also in defiance of common sense.)

Note: I would just re-create these, as I don't need anything actually undeleted, but they would just be speedied again and eventually protected blank. (Edit: I have re-created them, so we can see the idiocy in action.)

This is a very incomplete list of these redirects.

Finally, I do not believe these give any increased server load, unlike meta-templates, due to being redirects. If you click edit on a page that uses a template redirect, only the actual name shows up below the edit box. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, for the good reasons explained on WP:SFD. This is part of a campaign by SPUI against WP:SFD as a whole, apparently because his opinion is in the minority there. See also his recent attempt to delete the entire process. Radiant_>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi /C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Just use plain {{stub}} if you don't like being forced into typing evil CamelCase names. —Cryptic (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. These were deleted out of process, since redirects are supposed to be deleted on WP:RFD, and the decisions are thus not valid. I don't see the point of making things difficult just for the hell of it. - ulayiti (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and by the way, the person of the nominator is not a valid reason to vote against a nomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This is simply wrong. You might as well state that templates and categories should always be deleted on TFD and CFD respectively. SFD was created to deal with stub issues and that apparently includes redirects. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • SFD was created so that stub categories and stub templates could be deleted within the same process, so that there wouldn't be cases where only one or the other was deleted. This mandate applies to redirects only so far as the redirects point to templates or categories that are voted to be deleted anyway. Misplaced Pages:Redirect explicitly says that users should avoid deleting redirects if they help in accidental linking and/or are found useful by someone. - ulayiti (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here we go with the re-deletions, once again out of process:
    23:31, 23 December 2005 Grutness deleted "Template:Us-rail-stub" (speedy deletion of formerly deleted re-creation by User:SPUI)
  • --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Also note that a lot of these redirects have been recreated- and according to the above I suspect they were deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete per ulayiti. Not only were they deleted out of process. It's just plain nonsensical to make it harder to find the correct stub template. Logical redirects should stand to make stub sorting easier. - Mgm| 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete. I can't see why anyone could be bothered by variations with and without a hyphen. It doesn't have to be just one and only one version. -- Eddie
  • Undelete. Obvious error by the deletion process here; harmless redirects should not be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete And speedy-keep stub template redirects that differ only in capitalization, spacing, or hyphenation, and anything else that might help non-experts sort stubs. Too many times I've inadvertantly left a red link at the bottom of a stub page due to unexpected and/or inconsistant naming conventions. I typically give up after clicking the preview button 3 times and not finding a valid stub type. Shouldn't the stub folks want it to be easier for others to help them? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:14, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Overturn and undelete. This is the sort of situation in which I ordinarily would be arguing against the bureaucracy of blindly following "process," even when it defies common sense. In this case, however, the deletions were out-of-process; redirects fall under the jurisdiction of RfD, and there's absolutely no logical reason why the deletion of stub redirects should be handled at SfD (notwithstanding their instructions). As for the issue of common sense, I can't imagine why anyone would want to eliminate these harmless/useful redirects. Just last week, I couldn't remember what the naming convention was, and I didn't guess the correct spelling of a stub template ({{music-stub}}) until my third try. At the time, it occurred to me that redirects from the other obvious names ({{musicstub}} and {{music stub}}) would have been handy. I find it very difficult to believe that the regular stub-sorters would actually want to make it more difficult for "outsiders" to help, but I'm struggling to find another explanation for these deletions. —David Levy 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete for those who still wish to use them. I must say I'm surprised that the Depredations of the Evil Stub Cabal are finally starting to generate some real backlash, even though I'm sure these would all just be deleted again if relisted at WP:SFD. Regardless, I know I'm through with jumping through arbitrary hoops and will still just be using plain {{stub}}; the whole stubsorting project is just a crutch to tide us over until meta:Category math is a reality. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2011 Atlantic hurricane season

Page was deleted because we had the 2005 list. Now that 2005 is over, page should be restored with 2005 list clearly stating that names like Katrina and Wilma being retired is only speculation until the official decision is made. -- Eddie 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Afd can be found here --Doc 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, undelete. Eddie
  • endorse - kd - valid enforcement of AfD decision - come back in 3 years or so. --Doc 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; nothing's changed other than the passage of a few weeks. Extremely unlikely to change the AfD participators' minds. Adding rants to the bottom of articles doesn't help your case, whoever thought that was a good idea. Also, the precise problems with the information as observed in the AfD haven't gone away yet. -Splash 12:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. I agree there's no need to create the article, but when it already exists then what's the harm in having it? - ulayiti (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point, and that's what this review is all about -- Eddie
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted Valid AfD, no process problems alleged, AfD vote not close, valid reasons for deletion cited, no reason to think relisting would produce a different outcome. Obvious verifiability problems, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Edit comments like "To whoever doesn't want to see this page, it will be added as fast as you can delete it" and article content like "Trust us, we know what we're doing" suggest a WP:POINT challenge to policy and justify protection if necessary. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As noted below, I agree with your conclusion but disagree strongly with the following part of your reasoning: "Obvious verifiability problems, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball." The list is certainly verifiable as it now stands and a list of storm names (versus articles on individual storm names) is one of the specific example that WP:NOT gives as being encyclopedic in the very section you cite. To me, in this case, it is purely a matter of respecting the process, without prejudicing the right to create the article when the time is more appropriate. -- DS1953 22:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. Had I read the original AfD, I would have voted to keep the article, particularly since the names will become fixed in a few months. However, the article went through the AfD process fairly and there was a clear and reasoned consensus to delete, so I would honor the deletion. We will lose the history when the article is recreated, but there is not much originality in reciting a list of storm names, so that doesn't seem to be a great loss. On the other hand, I feel strongly that the article should not be protected from re-creation..There is no reason not to allow this article to be recreated once the retired names are known. The deletion arguments were based only on the timing of the article, not its content or ultimate spot in the encyclopedia. -- DS1953 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree on the protection part. I first thought it kept getting deleted because their was some user that didn't agree with it being on. After protection, I actually was lead to believe at the time the Owner of Misplaced Pages was protecting it, but obviosly since anyone can become an admin (properly known as a sysop), that wasn't the case. -- Eddie
That's beside the point. The fact that it didn't get immediately taken down testifies that not everyone is interested in having it deleted. As You can see, it point out that named are to be announced. -- Eddie 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know, someone just deleted it. Thanks! -- RattleMan 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Did You realize that the page pointed out the names are to be decided? I'm surprised that it survived this long, though. -- Eddie
  • Endorse close, keep deleted for now, but allow recreation. As a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I can assert that undeleting the list now is a bad idea, since the World Meteorological Organization has to meet in the spring to decide which names will be retired. Right now, everything is pure speculation. That said, after the meeting, it should be undeleted so the names can be adjusted—but until then, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Titoxd 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I protected the article due to the fact that it had been deleted a total of seven times, including 3 times in under an hour on the 21st November. If the consensus is to unprotect it then I (or another admin) can do so. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's counterproductive. I don't think the page is that offensive enough to merit banishment. Besides., the RfA took place while the 2005 season was in place. On the other hand, we don't need a page for 2012 until next year because we have the 2006 unchanged, though I'd wonder if anyone would be bothered with that being on. -- Eddie

James S. Putnam

Article was speedied for lacking sources and CSD A7, but a clear claim to fame was made and as far as I know lacking sources is no speedy criterion yet. I quote: "He ran a successful racing stable with great success on the flat tracks of Idaho for three decades. He was also a renowned charriot racer, and once drove a team in the world championships." I think this was speedied to soon and deserves at least an AFD discussion. Overturn (possibly list on AFD). - Mgm| 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I must agree. While this article probably doesn't meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies it is not an obvious speedy candidate. Furthermore, the speedy tag was removed once by DESiegel who commented "'drove a team in the world championships' is a claim of notability IMO". While this might be deletable, it was contested in good faith and was therefore clearly not a speedy candidate. The replacement of the speedy tag was in error. Overturn and list on AFD. Rossami (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This was a straightforward mislabelling, and a copy-book out-of-process deletion. TheRingess (talk · contribs) labelled this "nn-bio", wrongly believing that the article had to establish rather than assert notability. Someone else deleted it without bothering to check. It may be listed for deletion on AfD, though I'd say that would be somewhat premature at this stage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Tony has spoken and the article has been restored. That's probably the right decision (although it is currently unverified) but do two out of process admin acts make add up to legitimacy? --Doc 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm don't think that restoring a clearly out-of-process speedy is out-of-process. I admit that Tony sometimes takes a broader definition of "clearly out-of-process" than I would. -- SCZenz 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ayu Khandro

The stub was deleted at 17:27 on 21 December 2005. The page is linked to from the article Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. It seems that the wiki would be better if the stub would be restored for further editing.--Klimov 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete, speedy deletion contested in good faith. This individual gets a number of relevant google hits and seems somewhat notable. Though the article appears rather short on info, it has enough context to be expanded. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For reference, the entire contents of the page at time of deletion was "Ayu Khandro was female teacher of Dzogchen.{{buddhism-stub}}". This single line fails in my mind to even reach the level of "stub". The article makes no claim that this person meets even the most basic of the criteria for inclusion of biographies. Given the overwhelming and continuing problems we've had with unsubtantiated vanity articles, I have to endorse the speedy-deletion of the article as it was in that state. But I have no objections to the re-creation of a more detailed article which provides enough evidence that we can fairly evaluate whether or not this person meets the recommended criteria for inclusion. Red-links should not be turned into blue-links until we actually have something to say. A redlink is, in my experience, more likely to draw in a really knowledgable editor who can create a quality first draft. Rossami (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted content was a one-sentence subsubstub with neither context nor content. If she's notable, she deserves a better article than that. If she's not, well, she's not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted/No prejudice against recreation. The one sentence alone fails to provide context, and so seems a textbook case of CSD A1. Anyone wishing to expand could almost certainly would recreate a similar sentence easily. Xoloz 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion of the substub. I echo the sentiments voiced above by others in this matter. - Mgm| 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion but absolutely no reason why a more substantial article cannot be created on the same topic. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Replaced a recreated redirect page with a new artice with context and content. Thanks very much to all for the discussion.--Klimov 17:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, what discussion? It seems Tony Sidaway overruled the discussion and restored the article. --Doc 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As usual, Mr. Sidaway's action was irrelevant and of no use. Klimov recreated a legitimate stub a few hours later. Waiting patiently and Mr. Sidaway do not go together well. Xoloz 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And apparently looking at the article history and you don't go together well either - Tony made the article into a redirect to the more notable topic, as is appropriate for articles on highly obscure facets of a larger topic. This was absolutely a sane call, and your blanket dismissal of Tony's actions as "irrelevent" smacks of bad faith. Phil Sandifer 03:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-21

OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood

Greetings. I was granted access to the page OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood by the sysop Cryptic that have been deleted a month ago to make sure the new reference link I found as a result of using Hotbot web search is unmentioned there. This article is about a Snoop Dogg album, that is co-produced by west coast fellow rapper Daddy V.The new cited page would be the westcoast2k's news of October, 2004. This internet site mentioned on the West Coast hip hop Wikipage as one of the trustable West Coast information sources. The main problem in the debate (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood) was the lack of adequate external link. Please undelete. Thank you Lajbi 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-admins will want to know that the sole content as deleted was a track listing and an infobox revealing it to be 45min 07 secs long. External link lack wasn't mentioned in that AfD debate, and the link you offer doesn't establish that anything close to a million copies have been sold — the word million doesn't appear on the page. Indeed, neither does the title of the album. I'm not yet persuaded that this link offers any new information or resolves the problems cited in the AfD debate (which is more than just the nomination). If anything, the section of the page titled "Daddy V "OG TV 2" Soundtrack" reveals it's not a Snoop Dog album but a Daddy V one, and provides no information beyond marketing hype and a track listing. Keep deleted, pending the provision of better justification. -Splash 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This was an obvious error. amd a very serious one. We don't delete articles about Snoop Dogg albums just because they can't be found on AllMusic. I'm undeleting this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If Snoop Dogg is a major artist, wouldn't all of his actual albums be found on Allmusic? I don't think Misplaced Pages should be writing articles on low-budget bootlegs or mixtapes (especially since they are illegal anyway). --FuriousFreddy 13:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Discussion terminated by Tony Sidaway (again): article restored by Tony, deleted by Splash, then recreated once more by Tony . --Doc 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's gone again. It's back. Keep deleted, maybe userfy, until the article has an introductory paragraph to go with the infobox. From what one can gather from User:Lajbi's talk page, he is an avid collector of Snoop Dogg's work whose articles are sometimes way too stubby. Pilatus 02:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Deletion policy is that deletion is for things that shouldn't have an article at all. Your complaint is editorial, which is probably an abuse of the deletion process - David Gerard 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We routinely delete one-sentence sub-stubs. Now with this particular album/mixtape/whatever thing there are serious problems with verifiability. The westcost2k link doesn't mention the recording; the HMV Japan link says it's a DVD. Pilatus 14:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) If you must undelete this it (and its close friend OGTV - From Tha Hood to Hollywood) ought to be discussed together with stack of tapes that is on AfD right now. I'm really not convinced that this isn't stuff that someone sells from the back of his van. Pilatus 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How are we supposed to add an introductory paragraphy while it's being kept deleted? Kappa 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and expand - Snoop Dogg is pretty famous, why would we not have an article on this album? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I swore I wouldn't blow my top here again, but this comes close. A Snoop Dogg album article is to stay deleted because of "process"? This is a perfect example of process (bureaucracy for the sake of it) over product (writing an encyclopedia and including obviously notable things). Undeleting - David Gerard 11:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, Snoop Dogg album. Kappa 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted'. It's not a real album. From what I can gather, it's a bootleg/mixtape of some sort. I doubt that Snoop Dogg officially had anything to do with this unofficial release; his name is probably added to it so that this "Daddy V" guy can sell these CDs out of the trunk of his car and over the internet. We don't need Misplaced Pages articles on illegal bootlegs and mixtapes, since (a) they are illegal and (b) anyone can make them. All of the Snoop Dogg articles are in an extreme state of disrepair at the moment, and are filled with not only fancruft, but articles on illegal bootlegs and mixtapes that should not be covered here.--FuriousFreddy 13:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What has legality go to do with it, we have articles on all kinds of criminal activities. Anyway this is a soundtrack of a DVD which is on sale at legit outlets like hmv.co.jp. . Kappa 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Show me where the movie is available. Find it in the IMDb. If you find it, write a solid article on it and merge the tracklisting for the soundtrack into it, because there apparently isn't much else you can say about the record except that it exists.--FuriousFreddy 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been deleted by user FuriousFreddy again. So what next?? I don't find Wikiguide pages that deal with such a case. Lajbi 16:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • for those who voted here please visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1.Debate is not over yet Lajbi 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, not a real album. Radiant_>|< 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-20

The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts

I speedy deleted these three articles about short stories after another user tagged them "self-published story by a Wikipedian whose biography is also being speedied". All had previously been deleted by User:Lucky 6.9 on December 10 - he cited "vanity/possible copyvio" as the reason - and were written by the author Peter Treviño (aka. User:PeterGay), who had his autobiography moved to the user space and then speedy deleted. I felt I was right in these deletions, but the author left me a message here requested undeletion. I'd like to hear what other users feel is the best course of action. Thanks. Harro5 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's hardly a copyvio. However, it is only for sale through lulu.com, which is a site for free self-publishing (and it scores a pretty bad sales rank in there). So yes, it's definitely vanity. I'd invoke the snowball clause and say keep deleted. Radiant_>|< 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Though not something that really fits the speedy criteria perfectly, this is still a common-sense delete and would not have any reasonable chance to pass AfD. Self-published stuff rarely gets kept. It's hard to Google "Gay Ghost", being also the name of a DC Comics character, etc, but "Next Gay Ghost" scores just 8 Google hits: 2 on Misplaced Pages and the rest on lulu.com where the book is sold. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Self-published material, and admitted vanity content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:44, Dec. 20, 2005
  • Please Undelete. I am Peter Treviňo, the author of "The Gay Ghost Trilogy." I have been using Misplaced Pages for a long time and have found it a very helpfull and thorough service. So, when I had my books published (on my own, through Lulu.com -- and yes I have sold only a few books; but the first book has only been available for barely two months -- the publication date is Oct. 18, 2005) I thought I would contribute to Misplaced Pages as an expansion of their (your) collection of information. I thought perhaps it would help the sale of my books, yes the thought did cross my mind; but I would hardly consider Misplaced Pages a source for advertisement -- who would search Misplaced Pages to find their next book to buy? I did however registered with "Google" for advertisement purposes and if you Google "The Gay Ghost" you'll find my book as the fourth or fifth listing and "The Next Gay Ghost" as the tenth listing. I also listed my book with Amazon.com but it will not appear until after three more weeks. I respect Misplaced Pages for the wonderful service you are providing for all and request that my listings be reinstated; but if you need for my books to be reviewed in the New York Times "Books In Review" before being included in Misplaced Pages then I will respect your decision and wait until I am rich and famous. Thank you for letting me express my opinion in these pages. Peter Treviňo (User:PeterGay) New York
  • comment Misplaced Pages does not require an NY Times review, but it does require soem indication of notability, some published source that commetns on these books, for example. Strictly speaking this was not a peroper speedy, these should have been taken to AfD. But there is no chance, IMO that AfD would conculde anything but delete. I won't endorse an improper speedy, but I'm not going to make a fuss over this one, either. DES 00:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Books are commonly kept if they sold 5000 copies or more, which these individual books haven't, they also didn't have any bestseller status on Amazon, B&N or any other book seller site (including Lulu), so I think deletion is best until at the very least a significant number of sales can be shown. Would prefer some professional reviews too. - Mgm| 22:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group

I would like to understand better why the Fortune Lounge Group article keeps on being deleted, as I have tried as much as possible to re-edit the article so that it is less promotional. It would be nice for the Group to feature in the Wiki and I do not mind re-editing the material once again, but I do not understand the grounds for deletion.

I see you have a number of online casinos and poker rooms listed in the Misplaced Pages and these articles have external links so if this is not ideally the factor for deletion - please could you give me some tips as to how we can feature in the wiki without breaking the editorial rules per se.

I'd really like some feedback and will await a timeous response. You can email me at matthewa@fortunelounge.com

  • Support undeletion - this is a very popular and well known group. The only issue in the AFD discussion was advertising. Whether it was notable was not an issue, as it is a very notable group. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. If someone wants to write an NPOV treatment of this, they're free to do so without having to undelete the blatant advertising that was the content of this article previously. android79 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The point was that an NPOV treatment of it was already written (2nd version) but was speedy deleted as "recreation of previously deleted content". IMO that's wrong. I am happy to write my own NPOV version with advice from User:Fortunelounge if that is appropriate, but would like a reassurance that it would not be able to be speedy deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The second version used the same promotional language as the first – it just didn't use the same amount. I'd call that a valid speedy. If it's not a substantially-similar recreation, then it can't be speedied under that criterion. Go ahead and attempt an NPOV treatment. I'll put it on my watchlist and also keep an eye on this discussion. android79 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with android; prepare a new NPOV article and it can not be legitimately speedied. -- DS1953 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep deleted; the 2nd version was appropriate and contained relevant factual information about the group. Zordrac can help provide a NPOV from the 2nd version and all that we ask is that you mention a few reasons as to why the brands stand out i.e. what makes them the most established, notable, etc. I hope that we can gain assurance that it won't be speedied, but having got no straight answers, I'm gonna' just hope for the best... -- User:Fortunelounge
  • Endorse, if a good article can be written there's nothing stopping someone from recreating it. But there's no reason to undelete the history that contained advertising. —Locke Cole 11:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the article, although *SADLY* the spam filter prevents the 2 most important references from displaying. I did a nowiki and made it clear what they are referring to. I am sure that you will agree that it is unbiased. It seems that, on top of being the world's largest online casino group, they are also notable, since September 2005, of being embroiled in a spam controversy, and may soon cease to exist. There's a lot of evidence that this was done by 3rd party spammers, but they are being blamed for it. This is very notable indeed, and almost warrants a current event tag. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-19

Webcest

I speedy deleted this article as a repost of previously deleted content, but User:Gorman claims it has become notable since it was first created, so I'm posting this here for review. - Mgm| 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted article starts out "Webcest is a nelogism..." and frankly goes downhill from there. Most of the article is complaining about it being deleted from Misplaced Pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - We debate the merits of neologisms created a quarter-century ago. Neologisms created 4 months ago shouldn't even ping our radar. That's why we have Wiktionary and the Urban Dictionary. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete - Obvious I was going to say that, but let me refute those statements: I have seen nelogisms on this site that were created far less than 25 years ago: example, 1337; and many articles that have been badly written. If you're going to argue to keep it deleted because I wrote it in about a half hour then you've obviously been blindly ignoring half the articles on this website. Off the record, I don't think I care half as much as you do but I'm wondering why you care at all. It's a short article taking up about 135k on your servers about the existence of something. Gorman 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse and keep deleted. If it has become more notable, somebody should probably tell the Internet about it because it hasn't heard yet. Ten Google Groups results for webcest, nine of which seem to be the same ad for the same porn site. 565 Google results, which doesn't exactly impress me. Compare to 1337, which, without accounting for variances in spelling, scores nearly eight million Google hits and 133,000 on Google Groups. My friend, I know 1337, and you are no 1337. Lord Bob 00:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, so webcest is supposed to describe anything disgusting on the internet? Have I got that right? What sort of evidence can you point me to that would indicate notability? I mean, I can see the deleted article and it actually talks a good bit about itself—the article talks about the article. That's a bad sign when it comes to notability. But I'd be happy to hear any solid claims for notability. Everyking 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:45, Dec. 20, 2005
  • Endorse and Keep deleted I see no evidence that this neologism is even in widespread use no less long enough use to be notable — Falerin 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted still appears to be a non notable neologism. Jtkiefer ---- 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, keep deleted. The main content is about how the article was deleted from here, and claiming that it has 565 Google hits. Come on, even I get more google hits than that. Do I want an article about myself? No. And I shall speedy it if I see it. As for the subject of this article, it is still a non-notable neologism, so there really isn't anything to overturn an AFD. Titoxd 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry_Roper

This article was posted by a new user Jack Houlihan. It was put up for CSD by User:RHJesusFreak40 and deleted by User:R. fiend as an "A7". This was the first article created by this user and, based on the edit history, it looks like he spent some time on it. In response to a welcome message from User:Sango123, Houlihan left this message, identifying the subject as "a well-known Chicago-based patent attorney." Since non-admins cannot view deleted content, I don't know what the deleted article looks like, but since the creator of the article seems to have made a reasonable assertion that the person is notable (and has not received any explanation for the deletion of his article), I request that we undelete and AfD the article. -- DS1953 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-18

Gtplanet

My apologies to Johnleemk for putting this in his User Page. I will repeat here.

You recently deleted an article called "Gtplanet", as a "non-notable website". In fact, although the article was originally created by a member not affiliated with the staff of the site (and thus "vanity" is entirely justified as a claim), the site is THE LARGEST resource for the MOST POPULAR game on the MOST POPULAR console on the market. I do hope that, in light of this information, you reverse this decision (and retitle it so that the capitals are in the right place - it ought to have been GTPlanet). I do not know if this is the most appropriate place to discuss this, but no others were immediately apparent.

I will elaborate further. The site is dedicated to the Gran Turismo series of games which, as I rightly stated, is the most popular game on the most popular console (Playstation 2, if you're unaware). The GTPlanet site is the largest site dedicated to this game series and as such at least merits a short article to this end. The Alexa ranking confirms this.

Further to this, the WP:WEB article indicates that a "notable" website is one which has "been the subject of national or international media attention" (one of three conditions noted) and/or have "a forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community". GTPlanet has a forum base of nearly 83,000 members currently, with almost 2 million posts made during its existence, the site owner was interviewed earlier this year on RadioITG (), a US national medium, and there was a write-up in the May 2002 issue of Sport Compact Car magazine (bizarrely), a US national publication (I'm afraid I cannot provide a web reference for this, so if anyone gets the magazine and has an archive of it, feel free to look it up. It's in the Webside section). This would indicate that the site meets two of the three criteria - any ONE of which must be met - for "notability".

I DO have a Misplaced Pages account, but am not using it for this edit - I am also a member at GTPlanet, with the same username, with a reasonably high-profile and do not wish this to appear as anything "official" from GTPlanet (since I am NOT a member of staff there) or a conflict of interest. I should add that the original article was not created by me - though it was edited three times by me to make it more fluent and useful - and that none of the staff at the site know anything about this. Thank you.

unsigned nomination made by user:84.68.143.164. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet.
  • Endorse decision (keep deleted). I see no process problems with this decision though the nominator does give us some new information here. The forum size was presented late during the AFD decision but failed to persuade anyone to change their opinion. The site's Alexa ranking shows brief spurts of interest but spends most of it's time off the chart. Given that pattern of traffic, I think the membership criterion may not apply. I definitely think that a single radio interview on RadioITG is insufficient for inclusion. Rossami (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AfD Undecided leaning toward keep deleted There's a definite tendency not to keep forum articles, and I think the main concern isn't necessarily a small size of audience (many forums have membership into the thousands or tens of thousands) but the fact that there's rarely anything encyclopedic to be said about them. Most forum articles, as a result, tend to be packed with trivia of absolutely zero interest to anyone outside the forum (tom54534 got made an admin, dick54543 is a troll, harry423423 left in a big huff, etc.). So, I invite the nominator to provide an outline of what content might reasonably fill a full-length article about this forum. Examples: Has the forum influenced the games on which it is based? Have the designers taken any members' suggestions and incorporated them into the series? Has it broken any exclusive news related to the games? Did the forum pioneer any innovations or ideas which were later used by other forums (such as Slashdot's comment-moderation system)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Updated: Though I'm still not completely certain this can be made into a full-sized article, there are enough good points presented (below) to at least warrant a revisitation of the issue to determine a better consensus (the original AfD had only 3 delete votes anyway). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Valid points all. I will address them, if I may.

Rossami's point on Alexa ranking first. While it is true that on outright Alexa ranking alone, GTPlanet falls outside the top 100,000, in terms of topic-specificity, it's right there at the very top. Consider, for a moment, if you will, the topic matter. The Sony PS2 has shifted 70 million units (with its predecessor nudging 80 million), compared to its rivals' 10 million a piece. The highest selling game series on these consoles is, indeed, the Gran Turismo series, at 38 million units shifted in total - this compares with the highest selling game of all time, Super Mario Brothers, at 40 million units.

Compare the Alexa rankings of all sites which are exclusively based on the Gran Turismo series:
Gran Turismo By The Numbers - 2,658,965
Goldjunkies - 1,925,113
GTWeb - 1,654,077
GT Racing Point - 1,648,716
GranTurismoX - 1,409,479
GTTimes - 1,392,199
Gran Turismo World - 515,294, and this is the official affiliate site, a flyer for which is distributed in the game box!

GTPlanet has them all beaten at 111,355, thus justifying my claim for it being the largest site dedicated to the most popular game on the most popular console.

However, how accurate ARE Alexa rankings? Alexa calculates site rankings based on users with the Alexa toolbar or dataminer installed on their computer. I don't know about anyone else, but my Spyware-killer nukes Alexa every time it tries to come near my computer - as with any good geek (I admit it. I'm not ashamed!). Given the subject material of the site, it is reasonable to expect a high geek-to-human ratio visiting the site. This makes for a highly computer-literate userbase and such a clientèle is more likely to not have Alexa anywhere near their computer - so the typical user's visits to GTPlanet will not be registered for counting and subsequent ranking with Alexa.


Andrew Lenahan's points next. You ask about the forum - GTPlanet is more than just a forum site. The main area of the site is a complete library of resources for Gran Turismo. File databases (car lists, track lists and the like, as befits such a game), videos, screenshots, a fastest laptime database (which is, admittedly, not as good as other Gran Turismo time databases out there, but still exists) are all available for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th game in the series (the links I have provided all relate to the 4th game. The first game predates the site by 3 years and is not generally catered for save for within the forums). It is, as the site claims to be, "the most comprehensive GT resource on the web".

You ask if the site has broken any news regarding the games. Certainly. With members positioned within the gaming industry, we have received and disseminated press releases with frightening speed. We have also, unfortunately, been responsible for one of the largest hoaxes in Gran Turismo history, whereby a "car wish list" for the 4th game posted in our forum was mistaken for a genuine car list release and circulated round the world. We kept getting bitten by that one, as new members would sign up and say "Hey! I've got the official GT4 car list!" and then make an 800 line post which was all too familiar.

You ask if the site has in any way influenced the games. This is a lot harder to prove. Companies tend not to openly admit to external influences on products as this can lead them down the path to Intellectual Property disputes. However, it is certainly known that members of Sony Computer Entertainment and Polyphony Digital browse the site - whether or not there is anything more than a coincidental relationship between a suggestion on the site and the appearance of any feature in the game is impossible to determine.

(Incidentally, I apologise for the clunky links in the original text. I've now amended them.)

(And, additionally, if the article is reinstated, it needs to be correctly capitalised. It's GTPlanet, on oversight on behalf of the article creator)

  • Leaning undelete and AfD only if the article can be kept clean of stupid forumtriviacruft - who talks about who on what forum, etc. That stuff is wholly uninteresting and wholly unencyclopedic. If the nominator's information is verifiable, it sounds like this site might be notable as a fansite because it has activities outside of the forum - i.e., file downloads, reviews, videos, etc. None of the peacock wording "biggest, best, most comprehensive," yadda yadda yadda, is really independently verifiable, so that is irrelevant, but if it is as large and diverse as the nominator says, and includes more than just a Web forum, I would say it at least deserves another shot. FCYTravis 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your points are, again, valid (and you may note that, although my IP may have changed, I am the same person). "Peacock wording" is certainly an interesting way of putting it. However I'd suggest that "most comprehensive" IS independantly verifiable by simply checking the other sites I listed. Though I'm a denizen at many of them they are, for the most part, "only" forum sites, whereas GTPlanet is "also" a forum site, with the many resources I listed sitting as a reference tool alongside the large community there. Furthermore, GTPlanet is one of the few cross-platform sites, providing an ongoing reference for the earlier Playstation games - albeit in a solely forum-based manner for the original game as, as I said earlier, the first game predated the site by some years. "Most comprehensive" would naturally imply "largest" too - the one with the most data...

If anything, "most popular" is the easiest to prove (by the Alexa rankings I posted) but the least accurate in a long-term project, as popularity ebbs and flows over time.

I take your point - and Andrew Lenahan's - about general forum crapola and there is next-to-no chance of this cropping up in any article about GTPlanet. Ever. We have a surprisingly sane community there - though I didn't know that harry423423 had gone in a big huff... He always seemed so.. normal... - and anyone likely to spam this article with those kinds of "niceties" tends not to remain a member at GTP for very long.

    • Comment - Fair enough stated, re "peacock words." I want to commend you for making a well-argued, unemotional and coherent case for the article's undeletion. If only more people appealing on WP:DRV were as civil and straightforward as you are. Attitude counts for a lot. FCYTravis 21:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist (fair disclosure - I voted "weak keep" on the AfD). While I think the article was deleted with no clear process violation, there were only 4 votes (3 deletes and 1 keep). While 75% is a "consensus" of the people expressing an opinion during the AfD posting, 3 delete votes is a pretty small number. With that small base, a single vote from an editor who had contributed to the article would have shifted the percentage to 60/40 and two votes would have created a 50/50 balance. I would let User:84.68.143.164 take a fair shot at explaining on AfD why this article should not be deleted. -- DS1953 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Relist due to new information — Falerin 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Halo.Bungie.Org

I don't use Misplaced Pages much and I'm not very familiar with the protocols but after looking over the Notability page I believe that halo.bungie.org fits those requirements. It has been featured in national news articles on mroe then one occasion, the CBS articles on Video Game Violence is just the most recent. The web page has well over 5,000 unique posters over it's entire lifetime and there are ten times that amount of viewers who don't post but lurk the site, solely for it's immense news database.

I noticed in the deletion debate someone said that Hbo didn't have an Alexa page, but it most definetly does. According to Alexa it isn't the msot well known site out there, but as fan Sites go, it's definetly extremely high on the list. The Elder Scrolls fan site The Elder Vaults doesn't even hit a mere fraction of what HBO hits and it has a listing. Same goes for The Leaky Cauldron Hbo has about the same traffic says Alexa .

Also, Hbo is up for VE's fansite of the year award. and it raised over 10k for the Katrina relief through special edition Halo items with the Blow Me Away auctions, this isn't an isolated incident, so Hbo does have an effect on things outside of it's own community. A side note, Bungie.org has many exclusive interviews with employees of Bungie Studios and has quite a few Heads Up from the developers that are easily noticible in the actual Halo 2 and Halo Pc game.

All these credentials seem to fit it into the requirements, maybe not exactly but it seems to me what it lacks is made up for in it's age and members. The Halo Franchise is one of the largest video game Franchises of the present and it seems fit the Web Site that has documented all this is also notable.--DanteThePoet 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door)

Sj deleted this with the reason "nonuseful redirect", which is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The page also has history containing valid content. —Guanaco 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

This article wouldn't be recreated constantly if there wasn't a need for it. The talk page is full of well-argued reasons for keeping the page. Yes, some articles in the past were deleted because they were copy/pastes, but how is that justification for the deletion of the many properly-written versions of this article that were made as well?

There is no reason to be concerned about whether an article is "notable" enough, or simply "distasteful" (except in the case of vanity pages, of course): check out Wiki is not paper.

Also, on the AfD page, the page was deleted by a consensus of 4-3 votes in favor of deletion. That's not a consensus. I haven't seen simple majority as a rule on AfDs on Misplaced Pages before.

Another way to think about it: by NOT having a well-written article there, it invites vandals to write their own worthless articles, creating more work for admins anyway.--Aleron235 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Not if the article is protected empty, as it should have been until someone (:cough:User:Tony Sidaway:cough:) unprotected it. FCYTravis 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, Overturn Brian Peppers is a legitimate internet phenomenon, and well more than enough people know about him for him to be considered a person of note. He is a significant meme, and therefore deserving of his own page on wikipedia. While he may not personally have any political or other influence, his picture and the circumstances surrounding it have become popular and the subject of much discussion and other content on the internet. --Elfer 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted, Unlist We discussed this just two weeks ago, and the verdict was an (almost) unanimous Keep Deleted. If vandals keep putting it back, the page can be protected from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Each time it's been protected, Tony's unprotected it. -Splash 15:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's odd. Does he ever say why? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "No valid reason to protect this page" and "Still no reason to protect this page". I think he probably disagrees with the AfD or something. -Splash 15:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree with Tony. Despite contentions that the subject is non-notable, the deletions have resulted from copyright violations and personal attacks. Certainly, it's appropriate to speedily delete recreations that duplicate the language or spirit of the previously deleted versions, but I don't believe that it's appropriate to demand that editors participate in a special process (either here or on the article's talk page) before attempting to author a legitimate article. If/when that occurs, Brian Peppers' notability (or lack thereof) can be debated via a new AfD discussion. —Lifeisunfair 16:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone were to write an even remotely sensible article in its place that offered new information, then it would be properly reconsidered. If that's not done, then people shouldn't be suprised if it is re-deleted as either being an open attack or dribbling nonsense. I don't see the relevance of much of the nomination here. -Splash 15:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've no idea why the June version of this article was deleted rather than simply being rewritten to remove the more garish and bizarre stuff. I'll create a brief stub; continued attempts to create this article suggest that there is a need for something here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, Mr. Sidaway might have a point (though, as usual, unprotecting with sly, supremely subjective reasons is about the worst way on earth to go about establishing the point in a reasonable manner.) Given the original VfD was six months ago, based mostly on copyvio concerns, and subsequent AfDs have dismissed recreations per se, it is probably time for an AfD on his stub (which Nlu has thankfully begun.) That said, I again advise Mr. Sidaway that his methods are more likely to win antagonism for his cause, simply for being unilateral and anti-consensus. Endorse this recreation, and its AfD. Xoloz 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uphold and Keep Deleted. This person's sole claim to fame is a physical defect that makes him appear freakish. That's simply not enough. Otherwise, we should all through our high school yearbooks and scan and post the photos of the kids we considered ugly. Jtmichcock 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uphold and Keep Deleted. I disagree in general with immortalizing internet fads. What's next, have a separate page for each Henny Youngman one-liner? Flyboy Will 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Overturn. The simple fact that Brian Peppers has become a Internet phenomenon should keep the page. Maybe we could include in the eventual article "the phenomenon has been greatly hyped up because of polarised disagreement in whether he should have his own article on Misplaced Pages." or "The great disagreement on Misplaced Pages has increased his Internet fame." ..... Honestly I believe there should be an article on Misplaced Pages about him. If any other remotely famous person can have at least their own article space why shouldn't he? However from what I'm hearing the original article is not up to scratch, but it's the best we've got just now. Perhaps someone should write a candidate article? Even a stub's better than nothing. A protection from creation is definitely not the way to go. Just because he has some honestly vile facial features does not mean that he does not deserve a place in an encyclopaedia. <br\>--★Ukdragon37★ 20:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, restore the old history. Everyking 21:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - FCYTravis 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Care to tell why? Also, I support your edit of "Brian peppers is a man", I was thinking the same thing but couldn't find the right words.--Aleron235 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • For the same reason I've said over and over again. I don't believe some guy who spent 30 days in jail for a sex offense and has a body deformity is encyclopedic. It reeks of the stupid third-grade games kids play on the schoolyard. "OMG HES UGLY LOLLL!!!!!" Pointless, moronic and unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Whoever says he's notable for his crime is beating around the bush, he's notable for being an internet phenomenom (see also: numa numa). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and overturn - As well as keep new article. ust becuase the first time that this was deleted, perhaps we should delete Soham murders? Hmmm.... I think we know the answer. Becuase if the Soham murders deserve an article, then SO DOES Brian Peppers. --Hillhead15 12:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusion but I do disagree with your reasoning. The Soham murders totally dominated the British press in August 2002 and is a very prominent case of horrific child murder, whereas Brian Peppers is a nonentity sex offender who is only famous because of his unusual appearance. David | Talk 12:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and overturn I'd say he deserves an article. Simple. --Kilo-Lima 16:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and overturn If we have an article on the Goatse man we can have one on Brian Peppers. Rob 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and keep in AfD. However, only parts of the history that aren't copyvio should be kept. --Deathphoenix 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete some how my vote vanished in the revisions. Like it or not I have recieved multiple emails about this person. He was passed arround enough for snopes to do an investigation, and his google hits are quite high. In other words he is notable. — Falerin 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Whatever notability this man has results from callous attempts to exploit his appearance for entertainment. Create articles about circus freaks who choose to become public figures. This man has never sought the spotlight. Durova 20:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Durova, among others. Let snopes be snopes and wikipedia be an encyclopedia. -- DS1953 20:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No point in debating this. Tony Sidaway has already decided. It has been recreated and sent to AfD. --Doc 21:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, I did nothing that any other editor could not have done, once the deletedpage template was removed. I wrote a new article of the same name. The new article was then listed by someone for deletion, and then kept with a very large majority opposing deletion of the newly created article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, he's got a good point. Nothing wrong with that. -- SCZenz 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Stanley

This article should not have been deleted as no copyright violation is possible. Both the article and the source material (www.mariahstanley.com/bio.htm) were created by the same person: me. Therefore, infringement is not possible.]].

--User:Therealski 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I quote from the source website:
""The little girl with the big voice" is a trademark, registration pending - United States Patent & Trademark Office, of Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions and may not be used in any way without the express written consent of the owner/s. Storm Wind Productions and MariahStanley.com are trademarks of Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions and may not be used or reproduced in any way without the express written consent of the owner/s. All content of this site subject to copyright and is the property of Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions and may not be used or reproduced in any way without the express written consent of the owner/s."
The question is, is a Misplaced Pages editor named Therealski really speaking for the website? How do we know? Melchoir 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, even if true, having written something doesn't mean you necessarily own the copyright. The rather strongly-worded copyright notice states that "Mariah Stanley and Storm Wind Productions" owns the copyright, and probably don't sound to keen on releasing it under the GFDL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted If therealski is Ms. Stanley, or otherwise authorized to release copyright, she must follow the procedure for doing so. Till then, copyvio. Xoloz 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the article has been re-written. It is no longer a copy of the information from the website. Question now is notability. ERcheck 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
After reading Splash's comments below and examining website in question for copyvio (and imdb), I agree with Splash that the main paragraph is still a copy from the website. I withdraw my weak keep vote. Notability of subject is questionable (even with an imdb entry). ERcheck 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It most certainly is the same text that was deleted. I've just chopped off the really nasty vanity bits. It's taken straight off IMDb if nowhere else.-Splash 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The history of Mariah Stanley indicates that User:Thryduulf has received an email. I'm not completely satisfied with accepting a random incoming email as a proof of permission (I'd prefer it to be in response to an outgoing one to a relevant address), but the IMDB page linked from the article includes the same text and claims to have been written by the (rather vain) teenager herself. The self-writte IMDb page is probably grounds for deletion on its own. -Splash 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So, are i being told that wikipedia does not allwes quotes, or that i must re-arenge the quotes?--Striver 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You appear to have asked a peculiar question of the wrong debate. Where did you mean to be? -Splash 15:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine)

This article should not have been deleted in the first place. It was given a copyvio sign by sombodty with a long track of adding articles i creat to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of notable Muslim reports.

The articte does not have any copyrighted material, all quotes are from scholars of old and new, and that is not copyrighted. It is true that i got the quotes from a web-site, but that does not mean that the one that collected the quotes have copyright over them. If that would be that case, nothing would be allowed to be quoted more than once.

The actual text from the article i got the quotes from are not included in the article that was deleted, it was totaly re-writen. --Striver 06:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The hell it was. Keep deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted, only on the basis that so much of the nomination is legally incorrect. The website has copyright over the arrangement of the quotations, the authors (and their assigns) maintain copyright over the quotations individually. Quotations could be used under fair use, as long as the use qualified; the arrangement very likely cannot be copied under fair use, unless the article is a strangely web-inclusive meta-analysis of bibliography. Xoloz 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So, are i being told that WP does not permitt quoting, or that i must rearenge the quotes? --Striver 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
No. You're being told not to lie when you say that the article was "totaly re-writen" (sic) when even a casual look shows that it was not, and that even if it were, copyright protection extends to derivative works. —Cryptic (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Lie? Man, could you please give me a single sentance that is copyrighted in that article? If the quotes are a problem, then we can rearenge them or fix it to not be copyvio. Dont delet the entire article only because you think it quotes to much. --Striver 13:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The only sentences that aren't a copyvio of the the given source are the two in the lead, and I have no confidence whatsoever that they weren't taken from somewhere else. "Mustafaa as-Sibaa'ee was a eminent Palestinian scholar that lived with the Shi'a for a period and worked for rapproachment with them." is typical of your "total rewrite". —Cryptic (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-16

Arthur Prieston

Special:Undelete/Arthur Prieston

Is it possible to undelete the page on "Arthur Prieston"? Mr. Prieston wrote the original article, but it was tagged for copyright violation and he did not respond in time. Or, would it be possible to get a copy of the deleted text? I am the communications director for Mr. Prieston's company and need a copy of this text. Thank you. User:Samantha Bronson

  • Comment - I've moved this from the content review section. Special:Undelete shows it was speedied as a copyvio. --- Charles Stewart 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the text was almost a word-for-word copy of the biography found here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Provided the copyvio issue is sorted out, undelete and list on AfD. --- Charles Stewart 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I never got a peep in reply to my confirmation request. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if the copyvio is sorted out, I am strongly inclined to argue to keep deleted based on the principles in WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Based on the versions presented, I am unconvinced that this person meets the recommended standards for inclusion of biographies. If he is famous enough for an article, someone other than himself or his communications director should be writing it. The inherent bias of an autobiography is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Therefore, if the copyvio is sorted out, immediately list on AFD for community discussion. Note, however, that I have no objections if the user wants to login and put this on his userpage. Rossami (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted unless email received from someone with the necessary authority. Note that this wasn't speedied and that email confirmation was sought. I don't really view this request as grounds enough to undelete since the email was previously ignored, and the requester has been left a message with instructions to send an email — any random on the internet could ask for material we can't give them otherwise. It's a bit weird that the communications director knows not what is on their own website, but there we go. -Splash 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Iff copyright is cleared, undelete and relist. Copyvios come before deletion review, but the resolution of that problem does not resolve all problems, as others above have said. Xoloz 23:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The requester can get what she indicates she needs by (1) looking at the copyright page link or (2) by asking her boss for a copy. If she feels that there should be an article on the subject, she can create a new page, without the old one being undeleted. ERcheck 02:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete The deletion was done speedily based on copyright violation. If it is established there was no copyright violation, then the deletion was inappropriate. If there are then grounds to delete for other reasons, so be it, but the proper process must be followed. Nfitz 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read the Special:Undelete link more carefully. It was not speedily deleted. It was left on WP:CP for 3 weeks during which time email confirmation was sought. Someone merely asserting that someone they work for wants it undeleted is obviously not a grant of permission. Mere assertion of permission-by-proxy would only conceivably apply if it had in fact been speedied. Which it was not. -Splash 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, it is a copyvio. I don't need to get farther down that road, do I? Titoxd 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-15

Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind and Battle_of_Uhud

Could someone copy Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind and Special:Undelete/Battle_of_Uhud, dated 20:50, 15 November 2005 to my talk page? --Striver 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind has not been deleted, or created. I have restored the non-copyvio revisions of Battle of Uhud, including the warring over the copyvio tag. I can't find the rewritten versions anywhere on Google, but it should be speedied if I have been mistake and not copied to a User talk: page. I figure the article coming back is better than your talk page?-Splash 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This would probably have been better off it were moved to a separate title before being undeleted; the history is now interlaced with that of the replacement article formerly at Battle of Uhud/Temp, making it a complete mess. —Cryptic (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh. I didn't look at the article, only the undelete view. However, I'm prepared to fix this if someone can help me with which revisions belong where. From looking at diffs, those on 6 Nov all belong to /Temp as do those from the move on the 19 Nov. The others all clearly belong to the original article. The edit with summary "Starting over" by FRS presumably belongs to the original article since the /Temp link kept coming and going with the copyvio notice. Presumably the same is true of the others up until the move. Does that sound right? -Splash 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-14

Shpants

Apologies if I am putting this in the wrong place. The page as originally created was a nonsense article about an invented neologism. During the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shpants, the article was improved to refer to Three quarter pants, an article which previously did not exist. User:Peyna and myself argued successfully that both Shants and Shpants should redirect to Three quarter pants as less popular variations of Three quarter pants, as they are not the same thing as Capri pants. The votes in the deletion were 5 deletions and 3 keeps/renames. However, all 3 of the keeps suggested an alternate to redirect to 3/4 pants, as did 1 of the deletions. The first 3 deletions were made prior to the article rewrite, and were based on the original nonsense page. Thus in effect we had a consensus to redirect to Three quarter pants. I was bold and simply put in a REDIRECT Three quarter pants, but this was wrongly speedy deleted by the only user who thought that the article should be deleted outright. I propose quite simply for the article to have a REDIRECT Three quarter pants in there. It is clearly an alternate name for 3/4 pants that is in use in that fashion. I suggest that the closer perhaps didn't note the alternates that were given, and may have thought that it was a consensus to delete, when it was actually a consensus to redirect. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I was the original nominator for deletion of the for the Shpants article. The article that I nominated had last been edited on October 17, 2005 (10:53). I am responding to this note only because of some inaccuracies directed at me and in the comment above. The note above says it was "wrongly speedy deleted by the only user who thought the article should be deleted outright". I take exception to the fact the it was "wrongly speedy deleted".
  1. Concerning speedy delete: I take exception to the adverb "wrongly". I did not do the deletion, just the nomination; and according to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, G4 ("Recreation of deleted material.") it was a proper nomination as the material went through an AFD vote. An administrator looked at the speedy delete nomination and did the deletion.
    I disagree. Speedy deletion only applies when the contents are the same. The contents were not the same, hence it should not have been speedy deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. AFD deletion: The administrator viewed the vote as a delete. The re-written article was created in Three quarter pants. Some discussion comments centered on the term "shpants" as a neologism. Though some delete votes were made before the re-write, the "neologism" comments for the term provide the reason for the vote and as such are valid delete votes. Not all of the keep/rewrites supported redirection. Some comments (including my own) indicated that a redirect for a neologism not really merited.
I disagree. Other than your comment, the remaining deletion comments focussed on the original nonsense content of the article, not on the name. You were the only person concerned about the name, hence effectively making it 4:1 in favour of redirection. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
So, this current deletion discussion, in my opinion, centers on the merits of including a "neologism" as a redirect. (BTW, my deletion vote does not apply to the newly re-written article, under its current name, just to having an article called "Shpants" for this topic). I do think this is the proper forum for Zordrac's to bring a discussion on the merits of the deletion/redirection. ERcheck 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the harm. There has been agreement to make Shants in to a redirect to Three quarter pants, and Shpants logically means "Short pants" just like "Shants" means "Short pants", which is what Three quarter pants are. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that someone might think of it as Shpants. There was agreement that the nonsense article claiming that 3/4 pants was made up in 2005 by some 13 year old was not encyclopaedic. However, there was also agreement that the term was a valid alternative to 3/4 pants. Everyone bar yourself agreed on that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question re: this current deletion discussion, in my opinion, centers on the merits of including a "neologism" as a redirect Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't a redirect simply a way of pointing a different reference (word, phrase, term for) to a single article, so that two or more articles aren't being written on the same topic? If something "merits" a redirect, then wouldn't it also merit an article if there wasn't another article to redirect it to? Or are there different criteria for redirects, like, a redirect is less important than an article? --Tsavage 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazingly, Shpants generates 8000 Ghits. Wow. I don't know anything about fashion, but I'd tend to think that merits a redirect, if all those hits refer to the same object. Xoloz 13:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In this case, I'm not sure that the speedy of the redirect was valid, unlike in a recent example. I'm not sure whether this is a neologism or not, but I did know that I hadn't come across the word. The reason for this is that it gets about 11000 Google.com hits but only 54 Google.co.uk hits. -Splash 14:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete the redirect; invalid speedy even if the AFD was legit, which is questionable. Would prefer undeleting rest of history as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (I speedied the redirect so of course I'm going to say) keep deleted. Afd consensus was clearly not to have an article or redirect at this title. Furthermore, those google hits are, so far as I can see, all from ephemeral sources, largely blog and forum posts. A search of Google Print finds zero permanent sources; this wouldn't even qualify for a dictdef in Wiktionary. Compare 569 for skort. If someone creates a legitimate article for slotted spoons at zxyyklskizz, we don't leave the made-up redirect behind when we move it. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Having looked at the discussion closely, only two people are clearly against redirecting (ERcheck and Satori, who both describe the term as a neologism), one person is clearly for it, one person specifically notes that they aren't opposed to it, and the other four have no clear opinion on the issue. How you interpret this as a "consensus" to delete the redirect is confusing, perhaps you could elaborate. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re mentions in print. Maybe Google's algorithms are kicking up new answers for Xmas: today, the fourth result for keyword "shpants" points to an article in a University of Maryland student newspaper, Sep 26, 2002: Shorts and pants? Shpants! --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete as a redirect. The VFD said nothing at all about such a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the AFD for Shpants was not about Shants, I did not vote on Shants. I see both as neologisms and therefore would say neither merits a redirect - my opinion is that both should be deleted. The central question in this debate is whether neologisms merit redirects to articles with accepted names. Not a good precedent. ERcheck 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted for exactly the above reason. Eusebeus 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Cryptic. But I have one question: Why are you oppressing those of us who use zkyyklskizzs? Nandesuka 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Cryptic, delete the redirect, and remove the references to "Shpants" in Three quarter pants unless the verifiability problems mentioned in the AfD are remedied. So far no evidence has been provided that "Shpants" are accepted terms in reasonably widespread use. (No, I don't think Ezra Dyer's personal blog counts). If it's real, provide a convincing source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Shpants: No hits in books.google.com. No hits in online search of last five years of The New York Times. Four hits, but all irrelevant, in www.a9.com with search limited to "books;" (they are all to books on Yiddish folk culture, and "shpant" (not shpants) occurs in some Yiddish-language passages.) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re mentions in print. The fourth Google result for keyword "shpants" points to an article in a University of Maryland student newspaper (a PRINT paper), Sep 26, 2002: Shorts and pants? Shpants! --Tsavage 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Dpbsmith's research. (ESkog) 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article deleted, but the redirect is not recreation of deleted content: The AfD asked that the reference be removed from the Three quarter pants article, as that had been put in there by the vandal/vanity author. Procedurally, I see a new redirect as fairly irrelevant and not recreation of deleted material. On the other hand, the article itself was an absolute bust and absolutely fit for deletion. It was a neologism, and a silly one, but I don't see why there is any discussion of a redirect going on here, as no one is advocating recreation or undeletion of the article, so far as I can tell. Geogre 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would establish a bad precedent to allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a method for the cultivation and dissemination of non-verifiable, unestablished neologisms. As you yourself have said, notability should bring articles to Misplaced Pages. Not the other way around. → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You should simply to a search engine search and read a few dozen entries to see whether this word "exists" beyond some tiny affiliation of shpants fetishists (or whomever those who imagine the word doesn't really exist think is then using it). It's obviously a "word", and Misplaced Pages, being so open and immediate and all, is a good place to find the...latest in the English language! --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL this is funny. I suppose you're going to say that all the hits for "Shpants", all saying it means Three Quarter Pants, are irrelevant? LOL. Just ludicruous. And now, what, I'm being called a vandal for quoting sourced claims? This just shows the idiocy of the "deletion review", which just seems to be a forum for admins to come in and pat each other on the back and say "well done" to each other. This is perhaps the silliest thing that has ever happened. Just a REDIRECT! No reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot over it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Relist (I take it this means, put it back on AfD or wherever this got started, so that this can be discussed again (properly).) There should be no administrative sanctions against shpants, as in "somewhat short pants". Specifically, there should be a redirect now, and it should be possible to create a separate article if developed into a separate topic. This is OBVIOUSLY a term that refers to something specific. If we can have the tired "regifting", we can have shpants. Even if you discount search engine hits that point to at least hundreds of instances of usage in this sartorial sense (as opposed to Yiddish), consider the simple fact that there is at least one citable case where the term shpants has been the subject of an article, published in print, in a US university student newspaper (in 2002). Why are we trying to deny the existence of this stupid word and all it stands for? --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-12

Bankable star

Before the change to the article on 2005-12-01 20:21 UTC there were 6 editors who said that this should be transwikied and deleted. After that change, 3 of those 6 editors (including the nominator) changed their minds, one further editor (Gurubrahma) clearly didn't read the article (because at the time it had already been expanded in the way that xe said it "could possibly be expanded") and said that it should be deleted because of its potential for vandalism (even though the article had never actually been vandalized at any point during its entire existence, and even though, by that rationale, we should delete George W. Bush), one further editor said that we should delete it because "it is an article about a survey" (like the many other articles about surveys that we have), and one further editor simply echoed the rationale of an editor who had looked at the significantly different article from before the change.

My partisanship with respect to the deletion of this article is up-front, having been expressed unequivocally in the original AFD discussion. ☺ I do not wish to imply any criticism of Johnleemk's closure. My only concern is that there might not have been enough discussion of the article as it stood after it was changed. I therefore only ask Deletion Review to consider whether this article should be sent back to AFD for further discussion and (one hopes) the opinions of more editors. Uncle G 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete if substantial changes were made to the article during the course of the AFD. It is worth obliging a request by an outstanding user to clarify this matter, without speculation as to whether people who wanted to delete the first version would still want to delete the second. Or, feel free to simply upload a new improved version; sources proving that this is a common phrase rather than one used in a single survey may satisfy some of the objections presented in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was one of those who wanted to delete the first version. I did notice the rewrite; while I wouldn't have commented on the afd if the article was in that state when it was nominated, I didn't think it was of much value, and I made a conscious decision not to alter my comment. The rewrite was a one-sentence dictdef leading into a full article about a specific survey, including that survey's results; at most, that would have belonged at Hollywood Reporter's list of bankable stars or something similar. Uncle G, I have all the respect in the world for you, but your efforts to save the article at this title weren't sufficient.

    That said, I was also surprised at Gurubrahma's and Hahnchen's comments; my best guess at an explanation is that they didn't realize that the article had been rewritten mid-afd, and thought that the previous voters considered the current version to be a dictdef. Specifically noting on an afd that you rewrote the article isn't tooting your own horn; it helps to stave off such misunderstandings.

    (Incidentally, I emphatically disagree with Christopher's assertion that merely showing "bankable star" to be a common phrase would be sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. Blue car is a very common phrase, with 486,000 google hits; nevertheless, it is and should remain a redlink.) —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Sorry, that was a stupid misinterpretation of what you meant by idiomatic based on not reading very closely. My point was that while I think this is definitely an encyclopedic concept, this might not be the best name, but then again it's not a bad name. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete/relist per Uncle G, who is conservative in this area. To dispute Cryptic mildly, "blue car" is only a "common phrase" in the strictest denotative sense of that term. "Blue car" occurs often, just like "white cat", but it has no special associations as phrase in itself. Contrast "white cat" with "black cat" if you are unsure what I mean. The latter has extensive associations as a phrase beyond its literal meaning, thanks to superstition. Xoloz 17:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! - Keep closure endorsed, without prejudice to renomination. 14:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Trieglofobia - kept deleted. 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised - kept deleted. 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Gay Nigger Association of America: "speedy concluded" by R. fiend with no consensus, reopened, re-concluded by Radiant with no consensus. General idea is that maybe we should wait 6 months before listing it again. Ashibaka tock 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Guillemots (band): re-created again; history undeleted; listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Guillemots (band) (2nd nomination) 07:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. List of Internet forum software, relisted on AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Internet forum software
  7. United States: speedy delisting; deletion was a technical problem, and already undeleted by a developer. 23:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Danish Pedophile Association: rewritten, history already undeleted. 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Moshzilla: undeleted and relisted. 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. SHOCKINIS kept deleted. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. List of non-fictional heroes deletion endorsed. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Right to exist taken to second afd, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Right to exist (2nd nomination). Kept. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science, List of Jewish scientists to WP:CP. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Thomasine Church history undeleted in User:Snowspinner's userspace. 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Southern Ivies: was a notification-only listing. 04:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. List of Muslims in business: no consensus endorsed, discussion apparently continues elsewhere. 04:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Wang Sichao: already restored by deleting admin, on AfD 04:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 Categories: