Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 20:49, 5 October 2005 view sourceCarnildo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,472 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:50, 5 October 2005 view source Texture (talk \| contribs)19,623 edits →[]: I insist on taking to task the individual who generalized my comments!Next edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:
	****Encephalon, don't '''generalize my comment'''. I agree with your first paragraph completely and nothing I said disagrees with it. You seem to have generalized what I was saying when I was actually specific regarding this suggestion. There is no current policy to disregard or "give less weight" to previous votes. There is such for the other cases you mention. You are delving into new ground for closure decisions with this idea. I have often seen the same admins you list extending votes for the reason you give to discount votes. That is acceptable and in keeping with people's intent. I think relisting is valid even if I think the process is open to abuse. I just don't believe this new closure interpretation idea gives voters the same respect. - ]]] 20:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)		****Encephalon, don't '''generalize my comment'''. I agree with your first paragraph completely and nothing I said disagrees with it. You seem to have generalized what I was saying when I was actually specific regarding this suggestion. There is no current policy to disregard or "give less weight" to previous votes. There is such for the other cases you mention. You are delving into new ground for closure decisions with this idea. I have often seen the same admins you list extending votes for the reason you give to discount votes. That is acceptable and in keeping with people's intent. I think relisting is valid even if I think the process is open to abuse. I just don't believe this new closure interpretation idea gives voters the same respect. - ]]] 20:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
	*****Thanks for replying, Texture. We're seem to be very close to agreement, except on one point, which I'll take up on your Talk page. I'm only going to note one thing here: I was ''not'' generalizing your comment, but responsing to two things you said in particular: "''Throwing out votes at closure is a bad idea and tosses out the votes of people who will respond...''" and ''"...your suggested policy change regarding disregarding votes at closure is a bad idea...''. I responded by providing examples of how votes are weighed differently at closure in many different ciscumstances. This includes the circumstance we seem to disagree about, ie. when an article has had a critical change that proves a previous belief about it to be erroneous. Further comments at your talk page, buddy. ]] 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)		*****Thanks for replying, Texture. We're seem to be very close to agreement, except on one point, which I'll take up on your Talk page. I'm only going to note one thing here: I was ''not'' generalizing your comment, but responsing to two things you said in particular: "''Throwing out votes at closure is a bad idea and tosses out the votes of people who will respond...''" and ''"...your suggested policy change regarding disregarding votes at closure is a bad idea...''. I responded by providing examples of how votes are weighed differently at closure in many different ciscumstances. This includes the circumstance we seem to disagree about, ie. when an article has had a critical change that proves a previous belief about it to be erroneous. Further comments at your talk page, buddy. ]] 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
			******I insist on taking to task the individual who generalized my comments! That individual is... oh... it's me. Erk. Well, you were supposed to psychically understand that I ''meant'' to apply that statement only to this new idea. Sorry about that... I'll slink on over to a corner and hide for a while... :( - ]]] 20:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
	**'''Comment'''. I didn't say to require unanimous consent; just near-unanimous consent - that is, all except three registered users who have been around for a while or so. That way, one user can't stonewall or sockpuppet the vote. I agree with the relisting instead of lesser weight to votes. The claim can be validated simply by requiring that the article must have, again, been changed significantly by at least three unique users who were around for a while before the vote. And in order for a second relisting to occur, none of those three's edits count - three new people must edit the article. Eventually, there wouldn't be enough people to keep editing an article to keep it in deletion forever. --] 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)		**'''Comment'''. I didn't say to require unanimous consent; just near-unanimous consent - that is, all except three registered users who have been around for a while or so. That way, one user can't stonewall or sockpuppet the vote. I agree with the relisting instead of lesser weight to votes. The claim can be validated simply by requiring that the article must have, again, been changed significantly by at least three unique users who were around for a while before the vote. And in order for a second relisting to occur, none of those three's edits count - three new people must edit the article. Eventually, there wouldn't be enough people to keep editing an article to keep it in deletion forever. --] 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
	***], if you want to discuss new proposals to change the consensus guideline any further, it'll have to be elsewhere, as this has left the current VfU discussion quite completely. However, I will say that unanimous and near-unanimous are practically the same—they both won't work for AfDs for reasons I've already alluded to (I said unanimous ''or'' near-unanimous). They will never receive support. And in any case, such a proposal does nothing to address the problem that you believe afflicts this AfD. It's basically breaking the entire process to avoid an occasional poor (but easily remediable) outcome. Something like saying, "Many women get breast cancer. Therefore, we should provide mastectomies to all women when they reach puberty, that way no one will get breast cancer." A unanimity type proposal may stop occasional out-of-process AfDs, but they do so by basically breaking AfD completely (ie. they'll prevent anything from getting deleted at all in a timely fashion).]] 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)		***], if you want to discuss new proposals to change the consensus guideline any further, it'll have to be elsewhere, as this has left the current VfU discussion quite completely. However, I will say that unanimous and near-unanimous are practically the same—they both won't work for AfDs for reasons I've already alluded to (I said unanimous ''or'' near-unanimous). They will never receive support. And in any case, such a proposal does nothing to address the problem that you believe afflicts this AfD. It's basically breaking the entire process to avoid an occasional poor (but easily remediable) outcome. Something like saying, "Many women get breast cancer. Therefore, we should provide mastectomies to all women when they reach puberty, that way no one will get breast cancer." A unanimity type proposal may stop occasional out-of-process AfDs, but they do so by basically breaking AfD completely (ie. they'll prevent anything from getting deleted at all in a timely fashion).]] 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:50, 5 October 2005

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

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

Systemwars.com

Could the contents of both deleted version be presented for comparison (by non-admins like me) to determine if the closure of the Afd as a speedy was correct, please. - brenneman 00:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The entire history of the article is at User:Tony Sidaway/Systemwars.com. Perhaps you can take the debate there, it having already been extensively had here and elsewhere. -Splash 09:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

Votes for undeletion

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

October 5

Seduction Community

AfD debate This article in its originaly form was poorly written POV, with original research and a lot of spam links. It was then heavily rewritten. All links were removed, ten references added from media sources ranging from NY Times to UK Guardian, etc. NPOV, etc. At the same time a number of pages covering the commercial aspects of the community David DeAngelo and Ross Jeffries remain. Opinion is that the references to these commercial sites 'might' be allowed to remain if merged with the Seduction Community article. Otherwise Misplaced Pages is promoting particular commercial sites instead of the more neutral and objective community which these sites represent. DutchSeduction 10:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a request to undelete an article for the purpose of adding commercial links to it in an attempt to resuce other articles. That's an interesting use of undeletion, but it's not a very persuasive one since the other two bluelinks above both look very likely to be deleted, and I don't think the removal of a few links is likely to change that. Also, this had a very recent and valid AfD which closed yesterday, so keep deleted. -Splash 12:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I feel I correctly interpreted the results of the AfD debate, and that if anyone had wanted to change their vote after the re-write, they had time to do so. As the admin who closed the AfD, I abstain from voting here. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - as above by Splash - Tεx τ urε 14:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Misjudging the article on the basis of the commercial links inserted by spammers, which were removed? I took a personal interest in the article because I also objected to the commercial abuse, and worked with current editors to improve the article. (BTW, it takes newcomers some time to learn the ways here. Some of these requests are sincere. DutchSeduction 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at the last version and it still looks like an advertisement or vanity by participants of the "community". Removal of commercial links hasn't changed my mind and the AfD voters comments seem applicable regardless of external links. Reviewing the AfD shows that very little of the comments are directed at external links and seem more attuned to the content and purpose of inclusion. (Not notable or not encyclopedic or failing the google test.) - Tεx τ urε 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean Not enough people voted after the re-write. Not enough people knew about the re-write after the fact. I sense people are biased against the subject matter. The only remaining links in the article were from established media sources like the New York Times, ten links, which were all references to major newspapers and magazines. Suggest a revote on the basis of a clean and improved article. DutchSeduction 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (Update: seduction community was mentioned on CNN today...)
Undelete and relist. The article was indeed substantially cleaned up, adn the dubious links removed, during the AfD. It does not appear that the early voters revisited to reconsider and reaffirm or change their views. In light of this, a second AfD discussion seems warrented. Mind you, the AfD was valid, but the fional form of the articel may well not havbe been considered by a number of those who expressed an opnion on the AfD. DES 15:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was one of the eight and I had several looks at the revised version. It was better as an article but I still agree with the other delete votes (including my own) at the time. Also, apparently the nom had a look at the rewrites too as he commented several days afterwards. Ryan Norton 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be NPOV, but the reaction to these articles is proving anything but. How can references by CNN, the New York Times, a major book, and tens of thousands of google hits be ignored? The article was revised and is better than 90% of the articles on this site, but it wasn't revised in time for the vote to close. The AfD process should be revised to require near-unanimous consent (i.e. all except two or three keeps) for deletion, in order to prevent biased deletions. --Quintin3265 16:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- The current standard, "broad consensus", is usually interpreted as 65-75% in favor of deletion. In this case, 80% of the votes of established Misplaced Pages users were in favor of deletion. My deletion of this article was in no way biased. I myself did not vote on the issue, nor did I have strong feelings one way or the other about whether the article should be kept. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. Oops, I think you misunderstood what I meant. It wasn't your fault for deleting the article; you were just following the rules. I think the rules should be changed to require an even broader consensus (i.e. 75-85%), and a vote should be automatically relisted after an article is changed substantially. There are obviously some articles that should be deleted like nn-bios, but as is, it's too easy to delete articles many people are unknowledgable about. --Quintin3265 17:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment. If an article undergoes a major revision, such that some of the votes on either side of the debate would be swayed to the opposite direction (usually delete→keep), then VFU usually relists the discussion. However, raising the minimum deletion consensus from 2/3 or so (admins are given some leeway about it) is probably not a good idea. Titoxd 17:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete Relisting is harmless enough; the article has obviously seen attention from some editors willing to rewrite it NPOV. Un focused 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and relist. As I said above, if the article that was deleted was substantially different (cleaned up) from the article listed for deletion, the newer version deserves another shot. Titoxd 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
For the love of god no. I've seen lots of astroturfing and even sockpuppeteering on the article improvement drive (which was new to me) to disrupt the deletion of this article, but still no claim to notability. Keep deleted. --fvw * 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. This article reads alot like original research. It was deleted yesterday. Misplaced Pages policy states that Communites, message boards and weblogs are generally not notable. The article refers to books about guys hitting on women. BFD. Write an article about those books - not some random group that talk about this stuff online. What's next? An article about groups that meet on line to discuss cattle mutilations? This is the kind of stuff that gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. The orignal AFD included sock puppets - always a bad sign too. --PhilipO 18:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Commment CNN covered Seduction Community today, was listed twice among the references. So it is notable and making news, and not "some random group" as suggested above. Revising to discuss one of the books would be easily done. (The Game by Neill Strauss is # 16 on the New York Times. See Besteller List for Nonfiction.) Keep in mind that the books only cover one POV about the Seduction Community whereas the current article attempts to be general and unbiased toward the community described in the books. Let's avoid WP communism, and find the best way of covering and presenting this subject. Whatever the WP decides, there should be a neutral and objective article. DutchSeduction 19:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. 1. I appreciate Quintin3265's thoughts, but the change to consensus guidelines he proposes is highly undesirable; it will make it too easy for poor creations to remain on WP, as all that will be required to stop AfD deletions will be the interested vote(s) of the article creator(s). If unanimity is made the rule, it will be possible for an editor so inclined to create articles that just miss SD criteria, and then veto all AfDs. This is simply completely unacceptable. 2. Such a change actually does not address the problem here. Here, the article was apparently substantially improved whilst the AfD was going on, and it is claimed that this improvement met the objections of editors voting to delete. However, few apparently noticed because the changes were made toward the tail end of the AfD. This signifies a process problem: if an article was very significantly improved whilst its AfD was underway, administrators should take that into account when closing. It may be advisable to give lesser weight to earlier votes whose reasons for deletion appear to have been adequately addressed by subsequent changes. If it is too difficult to determine whether or not the changes are compelling enough, a relist for another run through AfD is advisable, in my view. However, note that increasing the consensus requirement to unanimity or near-unanimity actually does not address this problem; it will still be quite possible for all editors voting on a given AfD to miss seeing a much improved article and unanimously vote to delete. The solution is for all closers to be careful about significant changes made to articles and bring them into consideration when they make their decisions. encephalon 18:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Lesser weight to earlier votes"? No one wants to be disefranchised in this fashion. Throwing out votes at closure is a bad idea and tosses out the votes of people who will respond "my vote is still valid! Why did you disregard a valid vote?" Relisting has merit but your suggested policy change regarding disregarding votes at closure is a bad idea. If you're going to make this kind of change make it a relist in all cases. (I would vote against relist on different grounds - that of constant extension abuse. Every contributor will make this claim. Who decides if the claim is valid?) - Tεxτurε 18:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Hi Texture. Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I often agree with you where WP policy is concerned, but on this occasion I disagree.
    1. You suggest that "throwing out" some votes at closure is a bad idea, and that to ask that this should sometimes be done is a "change in policy". However, on the contrary discounting votes at closure is not unusual at all; it is in fact done routinely. We discount the votes of sockpuppets at closure. We discount the votes of genuine, good faith, registered Users at closure, if we deem their experience with WP policy too limited for their pronouncements to be given much weight. We routinely discount many votes by anonymous contributors identifiable only by IP address. These Users often feel "disenfranchised" too, but we do what we do with little hesitation because we believe better decisions about WP articles may be made that way.
    2. Why do you find the idea of giving less weight to votes made prior to a major change in the article, and not revisited & confirmed, strange? This too is routine. If an article is placed on AfD in the belief that it contravenes WP:NOR, for example, but during the course of the AfD an editor turns up, beautifully edits the article and sources it completely with excellent references, would you still give the same weight to early votes made before the change, that went "Delete, this is just original research, no sources at all" ? If you do, I don't think you'd be making a good decision. If an article is placed on AfD, receives 10 keeps, but the last vote is "This is a blatant copyvio, here is the source text", would you actually consider all earlier votes valid and keep the article? I wouldn't, and most administrators I know wouldn't. Determining the valid raw vote count is just one step of closing AfDs, Texture. The value of the commentary and argument enter the decision too—remember that AfDs are not polls to simply tally up raw votes. They are really discussions. I know that Rossami, Georgre, Sjakkalle, Splash, Tony Sidaway and other very knowledgeable admins have stated quite explicitly that they weigh votes differently depending on the circumstances, and I share that view. Regards enceph alon 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Encephalon, don't generalize my comment. I agree with your first paragraph completely and nothing I said disagrees with it. You seem to have generalized what I was saying when I was actually specific regarding this suggestion. There is no current policy to disregard or "give less weight" to previous votes. There is such for the other cases you mention. You are delving into new ground for closure decisions with this idea. I have often seen the same admins you list extending votes for the reason you give to discount votes. That is acceptable and in keeping with people's intent. I think relisting is valid even if I think the process is open to abuse. I just don't believe this new closure interpretation idea gives voters the same respect. - Tεxτurε 20:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Thanks for replying, Texture. We're seem to be very close to agreement, except on one point, which I'll take up on your Talk page. I'm only going to note one thing here: I was not generalizing your comment, but responsing to two things you said in particular: "Throwing out votes at closure is a bad idea and tosses out the votes of people who will respond..." and "...your suggested policy change regarding disregarding votes at closure is a bad idea.... I responded by providing examples of how votes are weighed differently at closure in many different ciscumstances. This includes the circumstance we seem to disagree about, ie. when an article has had a critical change that proves a previous belief about it to be erroneous. Further comments at your talk page, buddy. enceph alon 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        I insist on taking to task the individual who generalized my comments! That individual is... oh... it's me. Erk. Well, you were supposed to psychically understand that I meant to apply that statement only to this new idea. Sorry about that... I'll slink on over to a corner and hide for a while... :( - Tεx τ urε 20:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I didn't say to require unanimous consent; just near-unanimous consent - that is, all except three registered users who have been around for a while or so. That way, one user can't stonewall or sockpuppet the vote. I agree with the relisting instead of lesser weight to votes. The claim can be validated simply by requiring that the article must have, again, been changed significantly by at least three unique users who were around for a while before the vote. And in order for a second relisting to occur, none of those three's edits count - three new people must edit the article. Eventually, there wouldn't be enough people to keep editing an article to keep it in deletion forever. --Quintin3265 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Quintin3265, if you want to discuss new proposals to change the consensus guideline any further, it'll have to be elsewhere, as this has left the current VfU discussion quite completely. However, I will say that unanimous and near-unanimous are practically the same—they both won't work for AfDs for reasons I've already alluded to (I said unanimous or near-unanimous). They will never receive support. And in any case, such a proposal does nothing to address the problem that you believe afflicts this AfD. It's basically breaking the entire process to avoid an occasional poor (but easily remediable) outcome. Something like saying, "Many women get breast cancer. Therefore, we should provide mastectomies to all women when they reach puberty, that way no one will get breast cancer." A unanimity type proposal may stop occasional out-of-process AfDs, but they do so by basically breaking AfD completely (ie. they'll prevent anything from getting deleted at all in a timely fashion).enceph alon 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - This page is to request undeletion. It is not to suggest hypothetical policy changes that would result in the article not having been deleted, or if undeleted as part of a hypothetical new structure might not then be redeleted. Campaining by hypothesis will cover little useful ground. -Splash 20:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Fvw. I'm pretty sure the people involved pulled just about every trick in the book to keep this thing from being deleted, including Sockpuppets (and plenty of them) and an entry on the Article improvement drive, complete with more sockpuppets . Besides that though there is still no notability here (I know because I fixed a spelling error in the rewrited version), among many other (albiet more minor) issues. Listing this again would just lead to more sockpuppet madness. In addition, (and more to the point) the rewrite was done only two days or so afterwards - that gave people the majority of the time to give it another look, and it still stood at 80%. Keep Deleted. Ryan Norton 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've chatted with Fvw online to understand his (or her?) objection to this. I'm one of the supposed "sockpuppets". Please take a good look at the effort I've put into sincerely working to create a decent NPOV article on this controversial subject. As far as I can see, the true objection has to do with the fact that the article is about men picking up women, which is too controversial to be notable, no matter how neutral or objective the article would be. I have been trying to suggest removing all external links or using only major media references, but the resistance to the remains due to controversiality. If the WP communists remove this article, they also need to scour Wiki-space for all other seduction community references. Some are marked for deletion now, some are still there. Be consistent.
Keep deleted. Looks like a valid (if heavily sockpuppeted) deletion debate. --Carnildo 20:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

October 3

Peter Rojas

previous AfD The article was originally deleted on the grounds that Peter Rojas was non-notable. I think an increase from 700,000 Google hits to 1.54 million hits is reason enough for undeletion.--Kross 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Has he done anything to gain him notability (or had anything done to him I suppose), or was this just a steady growth of google hits? --fvw * 01:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

He must have, given the increase of several hundred thousand hits.--Kross 01:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Only 347 unique hits. android79 01:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted valid AfD. Nominator, please remember to put Google search terms in quotes! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. Valid AfD. No indication of increased notability since last discussion. android79 01:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Just a google search isn't sufficient to overturn a valid vfd. Gamaliel 01:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

October 2

Built for Comfort

Undelete This was a very heated and confused VfD debate, which I didn't feel was given a fair hearing by the moderators. Rather, I think they just decided to ignore all the arguments for 'keep,' and even any valid comments, just because they couldn't be bothered sorting through the mess. Plus, I don't even think the votes were added up correctly at the end. The fact is, this comic DOES fulfil several of the proposals on WP:COMIC. As so many people, including wikipedians, felt strongly about it, I feel this article should be given another week on the VfD list at least. -- Tony --
- No vote yet. For convenience to others, the AFD can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Built for Comfort. Titoxd 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Upon further review, keep deleted. Sockpuppet votes are accurately discounted, and addressing the ad hominem portion of the argument, Splash has a reputation of not going through AfDs cursorily. Titoxd 19:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid AfD that was clearly handled within the current policy guidelines. --Allen3 20:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, Splash did a good job of explaining his reasoning, the sock puppet push directly from the webcomic was correctly discarded. User:Zoe| 20:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted, valid AfD and closure. android79 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The AfD was entirely valid. KeithD (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted valid AfD. The rush of socks was apparently from a notice posted by the creator on the comic itself, making it extremely difficult to assume good faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted as a valid AFD. Splash correctly disregarded the votes from anons brought there by the comics' creators' self-described attempt to "make the issue as confusing and sensational as I could!" - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. 10 points to Splash for closing this one properly. Sockpuppets get routinely discounted and the outcome was the only correct one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I counted 7-3. Everything seems in order, no process problems.—enceph alon 13:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. The article wasn't given a fair hearing and most of the votes weren't counted. Bush's florida 'win' in 2000 was more fair than this vote. It fulfils several of the proposals on WP:COMIC, except for the Alexia, which has proven to be crap because:

1 - It only takes account of member's visits

2 - Only works on IE

3 - Only works in america Let this article got deleted, allowing crappy "Elton John is dead" articles to pop up which are fake. Let there be love dudes. Dave - MrDaveS 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This vote represents MrDaves' first three edits. --Allen3 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted, per everyone above. --fvw * 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Good, valid close by Splash. -- BDAbramson 22:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Again, it fulfils multiple criteria as dave said and it seemed that people were just agreeing to get another article deleted for no reason. -chickendude

Comment: This vote is Chickendude's first edit. --Allen3 11:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply: My first edit with an account -chickendude

Keep Deleted - I nominated this article, but the sockpuppet are still not pleased. Not having an article makes this webcomic worse does it? The webcomic author has copied and pasted it over to his own entry, I'm not sure if that should be allowed. See Jamie McGarry for the deleted article. - Hahnchen 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, that is not allowed, since it directly violates the authorship requirements of the GFDL being, as it is, an admitted copypaste of the deleted article. If this VfU keeps this article deleted, those revisions should be removed from the other article. -Splash 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- But people WANT this information! You pair decided it didn't deserve it's own article, but surely it has a place on a different article. And by the way, Hahnchen's post above makes no sense whatsoever, particularly the first two sentences. -- Jamie
Undelete - I'd like to express my sincere dissapointment at the level of unproffesionalism displayed by the wikipedia moderators. The article about this webcomic surely contributes to the knowledge base and comprehensive span that wikipedia should offer. The very fact that this article was listed for deletion in the first place highlights problems with the moderators priorities, and so it is clear to me that the wikipedia service has failed in it's ultimate task to provide information people want and perhaps need. There are other webcomics that have been running for less time that have kept their positions in wikipedia despite the fact that they are often less substansial. This clearly implies a level of favouritism and gross bias. This is an unprofessional gesture and I demand you reinstate this article immediately, before wikipedia's reputation is futher damaged. - HTM — (Howardthemighty's 1st edit.)
- There's no such thing as a Misplaced Pages "moderator." Both regular editors and admins participate in AfD and VfU. Misplaced Pages is inconsistent – the existence or non-existence of articles on other webcomics has nothing to do with the article for this one. You may "demand" nothing; you may only voice your opinion, as others have done. android79 16:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, though I ask that people please differentiate between sock puppets and anonymous/new users. The former term implies attempted deception, and there's no evidence that this occurred. Instead, it appears as though multiple fans of this comic were recruited to visit Misplaced Pages and stack the vote in its favor (due to honest ignorance of the fact that such input typically carries little or no weight). It was entirely proper to exclude these comments from consideration, but I've been seeing the "sock puppet" label tossed around rather precipitately. —Lifeisunfair 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct that the rash of new users voting on this issue are probably not sock puppets in the classical sense. The policy at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppet#"Meatpuppets" however does make it clear that any group of brand-new, single-purpose accounts may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. --Allen3 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The individuals in question did not register accounts (single-purpose or otherwise); they commented anonymously (via unrelated IP addresses). As a result, there is no "uncertainty whether one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits."

In the absence of contrary evidence, we should strive to assume good faith. There's no valid reason to suspect that these anonymous voters were anything other than new users who were not fully informed of the AfD process' nature. Some such individuals might be interested in becoming productive Misplaced Pages editors. Hurling unfounded accusations of wrongdoing not only discourages such participation, but it also helps to fuel heated AfD/VfU debates (by contributing to the mistaken perception of unfair disenfranchisement). —Lifeisunfair 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

LISTEN TO ME! BFC fulfils all but one of the guidelines on WP:COMIC, and the one it doesn't fulfil has been repeatedly questioned. It should never have been up for deletion in the first place! You just cannot delete this article, it is madness. I want to hear one reason (other than that Alexa crap) why so many people have put so much effort into getting this article removed. Just ONE reason. --Hijamiefans
- Please understand, by the time an article reaches WP:VFU the issue is determining if the proper process was followed, not determining the merits of an article. Thus arguing that the article meets a set of criteria created by a single Wikiproject and considered too lax by many members of the Misplaced Pages community as a whole is unlikely to change the answer to the question of was the process followed properly. The best way for you to fight the AfD is to either show how the process was violated or provide credible, neutral, and independent sources that demonstrate the original article was neither vanity nor original research. --Allen3 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- IF PEOPLE STILL WON'T LISTEN, I SUGGEST YOU INCREASE YOUR FONT SIZE.
  - Well it's a thought! Anyway, the article was not vanity, as it wasn't written by me or a fan, and it wasn't original research because all information in it is also provided on the site, in the about section for instance. As for the WP:COMIC rules, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they should be ignored. --Hijamiefans
Keep Deleted I can't speak to the article itself, but the sock/meatpuppet stampede in favor of it makes me move to the other side. Karmafist 20:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The sensible response to sock/meat puppetry is to disregard such comments entirely, not to hold them against the page that they support. The latter course of action unfairly targets legitimate pages that receive illegitimate support, and also encourages opponents of a page to masquerade as sock puppet supporters (thereby generating ill will among voters who impulsively proclaim, "too many sock puppets; delete!"). I've been giving this issue a great deal of thought, and I intend to introduce an "Invisible Sock Puppets" guideline proposal in the near future. —Lifeisunfair 21:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So your only reason for voting KD is because a load of people voted the other way? How does that make sense? And why do their votes not count anyway? Why are their opinions not worth listening to, just because they aren't wikipedia members? --Hijamiefans

Our goal is to consider the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Non-members cannot be expected to do that, and someone associated with an article's subject obviously bears a strong inclination to keep the article (irrespective of any Wikipedic concerns). —Lifeisunfair 21:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But that's like saying, people with an opinion that isn't negative aren't allowed to vote! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijamiefans (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's more like saying that people who have an opinion are encouraged to keep it, but that they should defer their judgment to those who have been around and are more familiar with policies and procedures at Misplaced Pages. Titoxd 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's interpretation of my comment is accurate. I'll add that if an article has merit, it's highly unlikely that the responding members' opinions will be universally "negative." (They weren't in this case, and the minority of "positive" votes cast by Wikipedians were factored into the debate outcome.) —Lifeisunfair 21:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, a load of members are voting...but none of them are giving any reasons. It's just like a herd of sheep. Not a single person has posted any reason why BFC's article deserves to be deleted. --c

That simply isn't true. Detailed reasons have been posted within both the concluded AfD debate and this VfU debate. —Lifeisunfair 22:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I haven't spotted any! The only reasons were apparently Hanchen's opinion that it was a 'minor minor' comic, which I can tell you is not the case. --Hijamiefans

I don't know what discussions you're reading, because I see numerous reasons. —Lifeisunfair 10:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well what are they? Because Allen3 (arguing against me) said above that the WP:COMIC rules don't count for anything! If this is true, then the lone reason for deleting this article is also invalid (as it should be, popularity is no way to decide what stays on wiki.) This is a sad case of people only following the rules they want to. -- Hijamiefans

Undelete People rushed to conclusions, and seem more interested in debating Misplaced Pages policy than the notability of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.209.82 (talk • contribs) 23:11, October 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes!!! That's the thing: Votes for Undeletion is the place to discuss whether Misplaced Pages policy was carried out, not the content or notability of the article. Votes for Undeletion is not a second Articles for Deletion. Titoxd 00:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Well where is the place to discuss the content and notability?
Keep deleted. I've examined the AfD discussion and it appears to me that the closer's judgement call was reasonable. It also appears to me that the AfD discussion did consider and address all the issues raised by Lifeisunfair and others above. You can't say someone didn't consider an issue just because they didn't see it the same way you did. As for the debate being confused, indeed it is, but this is because of deliberate obfuscation and sockpuppetry by supporters. I don't believe any voters had any difficulty determining what they were voting on or where others stood or why. The only place where confusion might have been an issue is in the closer's counting of the votes, and I think he managed to maintain a clear head. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you're citing "issues raised " in this context, given the fact that I've endorsed Splash's decision and voted to keep the article deleted. The only issue that I've raised is the fact that various respondents have miscategorized the anonymous voters as "sock puppets" (as you've done above). I explicitly stated that it was entirely appropriate to exclude these comments from consideration, but it's inappropriate to hurl unfounded accusations of wrongdoing. It's clear that these supporters mounted a good faith effort to participate in the debate process, but failed to realize that their input would be set aside. No one registered multiple accounts, impersonated multiple users or engaged in any type of "deliberate obfuscation." This is no way to welcome potential new Wikipedians. —Lifeisunfair 17:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to boil down what annoys me about this situation - it's the lack of any real policy. If the WP:COMIC guidelines are there to be followed, then the comic DOES deserve to stay on because it fulfils them! But if the guidelines don't matter, then there's no reason to delete this article in the first place! Surely you can all see how mad this is. -- Hijamiefans

Speak Freely

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for it.. but Speak Freely, the VOIP application, used to have an article and now it's deleted. I don't know what the contents of the deletions are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.90.128 (talk • contribs) 16:29, October 2, 2005 (UTC)

The only content "ok", which you can see from the deletion summary at Special:Undelete/Speak_Freely. Angela . 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

FL programming language

Undelete I nominated it for copyright infringement of a section some time ago, and the whole thing was deleted. It seems (based on some talk on a re-created Talk:FL programming language) that it might've actually been wrongly deleted, and that even my original nomination was over-zealous. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

All revisions of the article, save for the very first, were substantially infringing on the source, even though it only used a small amount of a 40 page paper. There is something, as the talk page observes, about mathematics having copyright exceptions to some extent (although this was not mathematics), but this article also copied the text that went with the source-code example almost verbatim. The lead of the article, a few sentences long, does not appear to be infringing, however from what is currently available on Google. If you like, I can restore that first revision, but it's a two sentence stub and you'd be better of just writing your own since it appears you know more than two sentences about the topic. -Splash 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. If the situation's really that bad that's probably not much point in salvaging it, but you probably exaggerate when you say I know more than two sentences about the topic :) Still, I (at least) won't have time for a while to do anything (or so I keep telling myself...) and a stub might be better than nothing... —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete first revision only. If it is usable, then the it should be listed in the page history for the GFDL. Titoxd 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete the version as of July 6, 2005. I disagree with the assertion that this is "substantially infringing on the source". For example, the material fits well within fair use guidelines such as are described at . The source material is made available for free, it is factual in nature, it follows logically from the design of the FL language itself, and is nothing more than a survey of some features of lambda calculus and the FL language. If there were some creative work in question here, that would be different. But it's talking about adding numbers, and about the way some programming languages determine which values should be added together. If this is a derived work of anything it's a derived work of those programming languages -- there's very little here which is the original work of the author of that postscript document. The work in question seems a valid case of fair use for every major point of fair use law -- the material is being used in an educational and non-profit context, the original work was released as an educational and non-profit work, only a tiny slice of the work is excerpted, and this use is not damaging the sales of that postscript document in any way, shape or form. RaulMiller 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing fair use and not copyrightable. Even if the content in question was fair use, that doesn't allow us to GFDL it, so it would still be a copyvio. --fvw* 21:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - We can't sue someone else for using the material, but we can certainly release it under the GFDL. Fair use would be meaningless if it prevented the use of the material in the context of copyrighted material. If what you say were true, you'd never see quotes in textbooks. Maybe you're thinking about re-release under terms other than the GFDL? RaulMiller 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Just to be clear here, I'm making several assertions: I'm asserting that the essence of the material in common between this article and the other document is mathematical in character. I'm asserting that most of the structure of this material is based on lambda calculus and on the FL language itself -- that it's not unique to Aiken. Finally, I'm asserting that for any creative content that doesn't fall into those categories, it would have to fall under fair use. The best argument I can see opposed to this is that the GFDL'd material might be used in some kind of "non-educational" or "for-profit" context. As this kind of re-release could not substantially alter the rest of the picture I don't see how that could make a difference for this article. RaulMiller 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - It depends. Some quotes are sufficiently short that they can not be copyrighted (mostly oneliners). If a textbook uses larger quotes, the quotes themselves cannot be relicenced. --fvw* 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      - If you're talking about literature, sure. If you're talking about a factual description of something, it's expected that the facts represented by each text book are the same. And when describing a process or a transform, it's often the case that the same descriptive words are used in the same order. If you're talking about an abstract or summary, it's usually reproduced verbatim and may consist several paragraphs (the smallest abstracts tend to be at least a paragraph long). And so on... That said, there is infringement here, simply using different words to describe what's going on would not resolve the issue. A is a derivative work of B if creative content from A appears in B -- more specifically, something that could (at least in principle) hurt the sales of or market for B. Given that, what creative content remains that Aiken might object about? Has he got a copyright on lambda calculus? On addition and multiplication? On the design of the FL language? What is this creative content that is being "substantially infringed"? How could Aiken possibly object to this wikipedia entry? RaulMiller 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        You're confusing two entirely separate things here. If something isn't copyrightable, it can't be fair use. Fair use only applies to copyrighted works. Once enough creativity has gone into something to allow it to be copyrightable (and that's not much), the complexity or creativity are entirely irrelevant to any further discussions of fair use. And fair use content cannot be relicenced under the GFDL (without the copyright owner's permission, at which point it would cease to be fair use content). --fvw * 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        I agree that if something isn't copyrightable it can't be fair use. That's why I said Finally, I'm asserting that for any creative content that doesn't fall into those categories, it would have to fall under fair use. And fair use means that there is no need to relicense, so it's irrelevant that fair use content is not relicensed. Facts and techniques are not copyrightable. I have no problem with any non-factual information from that article being deleted. RaulMiller 23:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        But if it's fair use we can't GFDL it, so it shouldn't be in the article, apart from perhaps as a direct quote (which would have to be sourced and wouldn't be editable). --fvw * 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        We're just going around in circles. Under U.S. copyright law (and this would be a U.S. copyright), copyright restrictions do not apply in cases of fair use. You've asserted that copyright is still an issue here. Could you please cite some rational for why your statement "But if it's fair use we can't GFDL it" would be relevant? RaulMiller 23:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        What's going on here? Even if the subject is not subject to copyright, copying the text verbatim from an external source to release it under the GFDL is something we don't do. But if the subject is going to be undeleted anyway, then there's nothing that prohibits anyone from paraphrasing that site and citing it as a source. Titoxd 20:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        For example, here's a sentence from a mirror of the wiki followed by the corresponding sentence from the postscript document. RaulMiller 20:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

FL's strategy to achieve clarity and conciseness is to allow the programmer to straightforwardly write programs at the function levelthat is, by putting together (using functionals) existing programs to form new ones, rather than by manipulating values and then abstracting (using lambda expressions) from those values to produce programs.

The language design is based on the tenet that clarity is achieved when programs are written at the function level--that is, by putting together existing programs to form new ones, rather than by manipulating obje cts and then abstracting from those objects to produce programs.

October 1

Wordforge

Undelete I was refered to this page by Academic Challenger, where it was suggested I go to get my wiki undeleted. First of all, ignore my last version, readded a very quick version when my wiki was deleted in the hope that it would go back without a fuss. Unfortunately it was noticed and redeleted. Regarding the previous histories, that's what it should look like, a review and history of my website, which whilst I admit requires further wikifing, is a good entry and shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. Not many internal links still, only Trekbbs and Internet_trolls, but I feel it should stay. Oh benevolent admins, please undelete my wiki :) Borgs8472 22:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD and no arguments for undeletion given. --fvw* 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- To be honest, I would like to know the reason it was deleted in the first place so I can argue against them! Borgs8472 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Try looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wordforge. It was dismissed as non-notable. And it was re-deleted according to CSD G4, a recreation of previously deleted content. Seems like a proper deletion. Keep deleted. Titoxd 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    - That deletion log refered to an even older July version. I'm refering to a august/september version that was deleted without a reason being given. It was very much expanded from the deleted version in question Borgs8472 01:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Admins, was the content of the newer version substantially similar to the older version? Because if it was, then we can all agree that CSD G4 definitely applies here. Titoxd 02:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        Definately, not. As I said, I began to recreate the wiki, but it was far, far less and even less wikified than the version before Borgs8472 02:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        That's not what I asked. If the text was substantially similar, the AfD applies. I wish I had the admin bit so I could check myself... Titoxd 02:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        The edit and deletion history shows that the deleted version was recreated almost exactly as-is. The article was then edited over time, adding a logo, improving the formatting and expanding some of the content. None of the changes made to the article address the fundamental conclusion of the first AFD discussion - that the website is not yet sufficiently notable to have earned a place in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There is no evidence apparent to me that the circumstances have changed. This article has so far been deleted 6 times - the original and 5 times speedy-deleted as re-created content. The re-creation of the article has been primarily carried out by one logged-in user and several anon IPs (which could all be the same person). Given the history, I've created this as a protected {{deletedpage}} pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        The anon IPs are the many users of my message board chipping in to add to the wiki. Few are regular wikipedia users, but they like our entry to reflect our site as best as possible. Borgs8472 12:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Thanks, Rossami and Splash. Titoxd 05:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Okay, here's some notable areas that will appear on the wiki if I ever get it back. First of all we're responsible for a drop in UPN's share price 6 months ago upon releasing a fake story about the cancellation of the tv show Enterprise. Secondly, we're a part of a "second generation" message boards which effetively have a libertarian constitution, rather than a "what the owner says, goes" constitution. (this is an element on my subsection on trolling I mentioned) Also we have published author Margaret Bonanno http://www.margaretwanderbonanno.com/ regularly posting on the site on the topics of writing tips as well as our political disucussion focus. Surely that counts enough to save it from the realms of non-notability? Borgs8472 12:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        Probably not, unless you become the GNAA. Titoxd 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        I can post more trollish exploits if you'd like Borgs8472 21:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Could be "userfied," i.e. Borgs8472, you could certainly put this on your own user page and if you say this is what you would like to do, I or any other sysop would be glad to recover the deleted text and put it on your user page for you. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would like the text back anyhow, I may use it for a subsection on trolling I plan Borgs8472 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I have emailed to you the Wiki text of the last version prior to its first deletion. I'm a little concerned by your last comment, but I trust you'll use the material properly. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  - ...I may use it for a subsection on trolling I plan What?—enceph alon 02:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Ah. Perhaps you mean an article on Trolling. My apologies.—encephalon 02:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    - <Splash puts his eyes back in his head> 02:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
As to the your VfU application, the original AfD appears to have been in order. As to whether CSD G4 was correctly applied to the recreation, that's a question only administrators may answer. Dpb, Splash?—encephalon 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) NB. Tito, strong hint noted. :)—encephalon 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Insofar as it describes the same bulletin board which hasn't apparently changed in the time between the two principal versions, it is substantially indentical in the information it imparts. The later creation imparts a longer list of the discussion boards and has a few sentences of intro rather than 2. It also includes what I presume is the board's logo. Insofar as the word-by-word text itself, no, they are not substantially identical. Since the AfD debate concerns itself with the subject rather than the precise text (we all know AfD is not cleanup (or hosedown, as once memorably phrased)), I would suggest that this is substantially identical and the redeletion per CSD G4 was fine. -Splash 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks Splash.—enceph alon 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid AfD and per my immediately preceding comment. The nominator asks very nicely, but unfortunately you need to have a good reason for overturning the previous debate, or significant new information which might mean we need a new debate. Neither option has been provided here. -Splash 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, per Splash and Rossami's attestations regarding the speedily deleted content.—enceph alon 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid process, nn website. User:Zoe| 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please note some of the new reasons I listed earlier now, I hope it will increase it's notability on your eyes. Not everything I mentioned there was on the last best version, I'm of course fine with putting in everything of interest to place the site in a more encycopedic context Borgs8472 12:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Please don't try to re-create the article, Borgs8472. In particular, please don't abuse my trust in emailing you the old text. Trust me, bulldog tenacity, putting your best foot forward, etc. are not going to do it. The article is just going to get speedied as a re-creation of content previously voted for deletion. Don't try to re-create it under a slightly different name, either ("Wordforge Board" or anything like that). Put it on your personal user page (and incidentally Google indexes user pages, so people will be able to find it there just as easily as if it were in the main namespace). Try again in a year if your board has become obviously notable, e.g. has been written up in Wired or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Look, the page has been locked, I can't recreate it even if I wanted to. I'm not interested in the text you gave me, I can recreate that with copy-pastes in 5-10 minutes. I would however like the version before which had extended comments on the fora and a little history. I'm annoyed that nearly everyone commenting in this thread has been refering to the last history entry, which I hastily readded, rather than the extended one. I did make it explict in my first entry here that that was what I was refering to, yet I'm being judged on different entry that I don't even want! Borgs8472 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      - And the entry you want was properly deleted through an AFD nomination, so that won't work. Don't try pushing it any more, ok? Titoxd 05:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        No it wasn't the version of two months ago was voted to be deleted. I've yet to hear the votes or comments on why the version before last was deleted. Borgs8472 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Summery of Innacuracies in these votes Before anyone else counts up the votes and decides to jump on the bandwagon of declaring my entry suitable for deletion, I'd like to list all my counter arguments that have not been followed up on:
- "This article has so far been deleted 6 times" - only 3 times, the last time of which didn't really count
- "the original and 5 times speedy-deleted as re-created content. The re-creation of the article has been primarily carried out by one logged-in user and several anon IPs (which could all be the same person)" - It has been deleted on three occasions and the anon IPs were my message board users, of which I have lots
- "Probably not, unless you become the GNAA" - Wordforge is quite infamous in certain circles, I would interested to know what criteria the GNAA fulfils to make it notable.
- "The entry you want was properly deleted through an AFD nomination" - this is not true as I never saw any discussion about the second deletion Borgs8472 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Alternatively, I write up a really full wiki in my user area, can I present that as the new entry so it won't be deleted? I can understand not wanting to put my little entry back, but how about a fuller one? Borgs8472 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not until it's become notable. And even then, you shouldn't just recreated the article, but instead come to WP:VfU like has been done for the Keyra Augustina article above. --fvw* 20:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Alas few of my female members will pose nude on the net :( But on those lines, seriously, I have a published author who regularly posts on my site, does that not help my case? Borgs8472 23:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The "I didn't see the AFD debate, so undelete" argument never works, unless you have substantial information that we behaved inproperly in the deletion process, which 8 editors experienced in VFU don't see. The first deletion was done through AFD, and the consensus there was applied properly. The rest were deleted because we also have the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, and CSD G4 states: A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy can be deleted without a deletion discussion. As a result, there is no need for an AFD for the second deletion. And if you want to know what the GNAA went through to stay, read this, this, this, this, this and this. Titoxd 00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment User:Titoxd is quite corrent. However, it followes thart an articel that is not "substantially similar" to a previously delted article can be created. If you do this, i woudl advise workign on a draft in your user spoace, adn only moviong to the articel space when you ahve a full articlethat is clearly significantly different from any previous verion, adn makes a serious attempt to address the objectiosn raised above, particualrly the issue of notability. Thw articel should include verifiabel induications of notability, and should be theroughly supported by cited sources. That is if you or anyone chose to do this. It is not, however, required that you go to VfU for permission to write a new and different articel about a previously delted topic -- indeed I don't think it is even appropriate. DES 16:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles:

I about to undelete and AfD'd all the colo(u)r articles in this AfD, even though not all were listed here. Let me explain myself. The permalink you need to the discussion I just removed is this. Clearly, each article as listed individually is to be restored (no question), and AfD'd per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy. Remember that VfU is a majoritarian system at present. However, I note that a number of users only commented in the 'blanket' section at the top, and not at all on the individual listing. Some, such as Encephalon (notably twice; I'll take your later answer) request only to undelete those that had no consensus originally but then choose to undelete all that are listed: so I presume the blanket section applies to the entire AfD. Further, the blanket undelete has 8 supporters, the selective-blanket undelete has 3 supporters, and the indiviudual colours have no more than 7 comments each in total, and no more than 6 undeletes each. The majoritarian arrangement, the evident choice on the part of many editors to not comment individually and the numerically greatest support for a wholesale undeletion causes me so to act.

If you intend to make a blanket comment on the new AfDs, please do so by copy-pasting your comments, rather than making a blanket comment in one of them: do not expect the closing admin to extrapolate on your behalf in these exceptional circumstances. -Splash 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Splash. It was apparent from the VfU that all the colors would have to be undeleted, so you will find no objection from me now that you have. However, you write,

Some, such as Encephalon (notably twice; I'll take your later answer) request only to undelete those that had no consensus originally but then choose to undelete all that are listed: so I presume the blanket section applies to the entire AfD.

As I'm not sure precisely what you mean, I'll just explain my votes briefly. BDAbramson created one main section explaining his VfU request and several individual sections below for the colors that had not achieved any kind of consensus on the original AfD. I wrote under the main section that I thought only those colors should be undeleted; since BDA had also listed those very colors individually, I placed my vote in those sections too. Note that all the colors he listed individually are the colors for which there was no consensus; I know because I studied the vote count on the original AfD myself and compared them to BDA's tally on the AfD Talk page. Hence, I don't think there was inconsistency in my comments (not saying that's what you're saying of course. Just sayin :)). I do think the VfU suffered from a confusion similar to that seen on the original AfD; editors started to vote "undelete all" under BDA's main section header, whereas he intended to request only individual undeletes of the colors which had not received consensus (his opening sentence on the VfU was "I request that the articles listed individually below be undeleted"). Regards—enceph alon 08:39, 30 September 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.