Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 27 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.

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

• WP:DELREVD

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.

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

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".

October 27

Template:Support

Deleted four months ago through a TfD process. However, since then the situation changed and most of the arguments against it were proved wrong. Among the most notable reasons why it should be undeleted:

• It's obligatory at the commons and used with success at the Featured pic voting there

  The argument that the usage of {{Support}} instead of *'''Support''' makes people vote instead of discussing things has been proven wrong by the fact that the discussions at Commons:Featured picture candidates are not shorter or longer than at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates

  There are still people who are willing to use the template and find it both useful and nice, and nobody has posted any reason why should they be banned from doing so

  The argument of high bandwidth usage has been proven wrong since all browsers load the image only once, and not as many times as it is shown on a page. Also the page loading times of commons' FPC and its wiki counterpart show no differences

Halibutt 13:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

October 26

Ones Discotheque

I wish to have this page undeleted. The article only contained history of the club and the various entities tied to the club. The club has not be open since the early 80's, but the information is historically accurate. I know this because I was the owner.

• Before we embark on a discussion on "adverts aren't speedies", note that WP:VAND defines spam as vandalism, but rests that criterion on external links. This doesn't have external links. However, for non-admins, I reproduce a sample of the article, since it was a speedy:

  Did you know...

  That every Saturday afternoon was the first ever Disco Tot? Parents brought their children to dance and eat hot dogs, sit at the bar, and dance under the neon lights!

  Ones was voted by Vogue magazine as one of the top 10 discos in the world!

  Ones manufactured all its own neon lights in the basement of the club.

  etc etc for 10 lines total.

• This is pretty obviously an indiscriminate collection of information. The nominator should probably know that this article, as it stood before speedy deletion, hasn't got a prayer when taken through the regular deletion process — not a prayer. I would thus choose keep deleted because any other option is needless bureaucracy. I do acknowledge, however, that the case for speedying this is very weak within CSD policy. As such, if an alternative article were rewritten with a decent attempt at making an encyclopedic contribution, it would not be a speedy, but should still be taken to AfD, imo. -Splash 03:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What was I thinking? Xoloz below is quite correct. The article is context-free, although some of the bullet points do imply that it may be in New York, NY. -Splash 06:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can understand why this was speedied, and think its probably a case of lack of context. Without being given a location, or the nature and name of the business explicitly, the reproduced content is simply hard to understand. Endorse decision to speedy. Feel free to rewrite the entry with context, making it clear what and where the club was, and it won't be speedied (it will be AfD'ed, I'm sure). Xoloz 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Splash, it is just a list of random facts, prohibited by WP:NOT. Endorse decision to speedy. Titoxd 06:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted I doubt that this is really much of a speedy candidate: a club closed 25 years ago can't really be advertised, and the content (though arguably quite trivial) doesn't match my perception of an A1/no-context article either. The reason I'm voting to keep deleted rather than undelete is that with no Google hits besides WP & mirrors, this article wouldn't stand a snowball's chance of passing an AfD vote, and undeleting it would be a mere beaurocratic exercise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yggdrasil festival

I wish to have this page undelted. It was stated that it was deleted because it was of unimportance and only an advertisement for a "local" festival. The 2005 Yggdrasil Festival was an innaugural event that raised funding for music and art education in the MN public school system. The festival was a non-profit event that brought in over 3,000 festival-goers(from aroud the country) and 12 bands--including PHIX--from Colorado and Karl Denson's Tiny Universe--from California. Our headlining band, Karl Denson's Tiny Universe, is one of the most popular funk/jazz bands in the world. Please, check out their website and see that they are one of the most talented touring bands around: www.karldenson.com. The "Yggdrasil festival" adds depth to Misplaced Pages and helps promote grassroots fundraising for our underfunded public programs in Minnesota. I started the festival along with my fiancee and we work and donate our time with absolutely no financial compensation, and it is through great sites such as Misplaced Pages, that our festival is able to flourish and generate funding for our cause. The Yggdrasil festival will be back next year offering over 30 bands that will play during 3 days and 4 nights. We hope to raise over $100,000.00 for art and music education in the MN public school system next year. Please, reconsider undeleting this page. Thanks --Mgehring.

• Keep deleted. AfD is here, and is very valid. As the AfD nomination and other participants say, this does appear to be basically an advert. The nomination here confirms that fact. WP:ISNOT advertising space, to allow you to "flourish and generate funding for our cause". You need to do that somewhere else, I'm afraid. The people appearing at the festival don't matter all that much (though they do some) since the festival should be notable in its own right, although getting lots of famous people would help. However, the numbers attending it were moderately large (though smaller than what I would hazard might be 'notable') and so this might pass an AfD after next year's event if its public profile has expanded by then. -Splash 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer's decision. Splash is correct. Misplaced Pages is not a place to promote causes or events, however worthy. Once your event is sufficiently large and establsihed to be notable, then wikipedia can and should include an article on it. If you have (now or in future) citeable evidence for notability (such as non-local news coverage) that would be a good reason to include such an article. DES 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (for now at least). Mgehring for something to be on Misplaced Pages it has to be verifyable. I'm sorry but we are an encylopedia, we are not in the business of providing advertising for your event. It doesn't matter how much you hope to raise or how worthy your cause, our criteria are "does wikipedia benefit from having the article?" not "does the festival benefit?" Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Mgehring I am not "promoting" the event on Misplaced Pages, I am simply providing an outlet for information regarding the festival--the same as many other festivals do on wikipedia. The page was originally deleted for being "non-notable" and having "non-notable musical acts" and a "local event". The festival featured 5 national touring bands, 2 international touring bands and a handful of VERY talented "local" acts from MINNEAPOLIS--one of the musical hotbeds of this great nation. The festival was produced as a national event and had every aspect that any other national event had. User:Mgehring The Misplaced Pages page was also done very tastefully and was updated with photos from the event--again--informational--not advertisement. Please--check out the festival website(www.yggdrasilfestival.com)--compare it to any other festival site and then post back here that it is "non-notable"--compare this festival to others that are still here on Misplaced Pages--there is no difference! Under "Current Rock Festivals" you list JamCruise--please check out the Jam Cruise website and see who is headlining---KARL DENSON'S TINY UNIVERSE--not a band that would play a "local" event. Yggdrasil Festival also dwarfed "NedFest", while at the same time raised money for a great cause, which is also listed as a "current festival"--why is NedFest not also deleted??

• Endorse closer/Keep Deleted Valid AfD. I would argue that almost no festival is notable as an "annual event" until it has been established for at least two event-cycles. In the absence of such continuity, there is practical doubt as to whether it is really annual (as any experienced local organizers know, many of these things fail to thrive.) The cause is a good one, but I have fundamental verifiability issues, quite apart from the ad question. If you Nedfest is similar to your festival but similar smaller, consider nominating it for deletion. I will examine right now. Xoloz 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For interested parties, I have nominated NedFest for deletion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/NedFest. Xoloz 05:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• As the closer, I will not put in a vote here. The decision to delete was an easy one (unanimous delete), so there will definitely be no Able and Baker-type self-overturning of the debate here. I wish to express my agreement with the others who have pointed out that Misplaced Pages is not an advertisment service. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Boeing B-9

This article seems to have been deleted by mistake during an attemped page move. Susvolans ⇔ 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I restored Boeing B-9 and reverted Boeing Y1B-9 to the original redirect. The redirect had been replaced with a stub when an editor found the broken redirect. Could probably just have dropped a note to the deleting admin's talk page to get this done. -Splash 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Pinocchio and FooT

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pinocchio_and_FooT

I request that the Pinocchio and FooT entry be reinstated. As the artist, I can vouch for the fact that the comic was distributed during the seventies in Salt Lake City in several schools. The article was not a hoax. True, the comic/webcomic may not be notable in the sense that it gets millions (or hundreds) of hits. And perhaps it is better suited for comixpedia. Still, I want to insist that it is not a hoax. I would further like to note that the comment "come on" from one editor seems to be a very weak reason for deletion. Also, I did not write the original article. A fan did. I only modified it when it was brought to my attention. (Jscoombs 06:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

• I moved nomination to the correct date. Keep deleted valid Afd, given relisting time (and commend Redwolf24 on relisting). No substantial argument given that process was incorrect, or that content had merit not before considered. Xoloz 06:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer's decision. - brenneman 06:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I get the format wrong. I contribute rarely to Misplaced Pages. I also request that Pinocchio and FooT be reinstated. I am the person being parodied by the Ferret character. Richard Olson, a faculty member at the University of Iowa medical school is the person being parodied by the Pinocchio character. I can also vouch for the facts in the article. I still have my original copies of Pinocchio and FooT from the 70's. I have assigned Pinocchio and FooT as extra credit for my Materials Science course for several years. There are several years' worth of students at Harvey Mudd College who would be disappointed to discover the P & F article had been deleted. I had assumed that Misplaced Pages was the place to find factual but esoteric information. I may have been mistaken. Prof. R. Erik Spjut, Harvey Mudd College

• Keep Deleted Valid VfD with no keep votes... it even got a second five-day run and still nobody voted to keep it. Personally, I think the hoax-or-not issue is of little relevance to its inclusion, even if every word was true it still wouldn't be notable enough to be kept. A comic "circulated" through schools in one town just isn't the sort of thing that gets put in an encyclopedia. I think the transwiki suggestion has merit though. If you need the text of the article to transwiki it to comixpedia, let me know and I'll send it to you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse (keep deleted) — I closed the AfD on this article: it was not an easy close. One of the things that made the closing difficult was that I felt the content was of a length and minimal quality better than many other AfD's. However, I noted that the AfD was opened on 1 October, relisted on the 15 October and closed on 22 October. During that long run, no one voted to keep the article. The only request other than delete was to transwiki to comixpedia. The standard transwiki procedure wouldn't work for comixpedia, and it's really up to those withan interest in either comixpedia or the article to perform the task. Therefore, I felt deletion was the clear consensus. --Gareth Hughes 15:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am truly sorry I did not understand that a prerequisite for contributing to wikipedia is a constant monitoring of articles for their continued existence. For this reason the commentary period came and went without my vote for non-deletion. I apologize for my ignorance and for not devoting more time learning the inner workings of your site. Perhaps someday I will better understand the "wiki way." I would like to thank the kind editor who did indeed transwiki the article to comixpedia so that only the article's history was lost. "All ... forms of consensus about great books and perennial problems, once stabilized, tend to deteriorate eventually into something philistine." (Susan Sonntag)

-- Jscoombs 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it applies here, but that is a handy quotation, I must say. :) Xoloz 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Huh, that needs fixing. You can't copy GFDL'd text without providing a copy of the history somewhere. It needs to be pasted into the Comixpedia talk page, or something. -Splash 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer (keep deleted) - valid AfD - this just supports the closing - Tεxτurε 18:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close (keep deleted). After a relisting, and spending three weeks on AfD, there was no support for retaining the article, and there was nothing apparently wrong with the AfD process, or with the closure. The suggestion above that the nominator here was unaware of the debate is a reason to re-run the AfD, but only if there is some suggestion that he might have swung the debate. Only the nominator mentioned the possibility of a hoax; the other participants did not (oh, apart from the 'per nom', I suppose) and no new information has been offered here. -Splash 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, but it looks like the sort of thing the Comixpedia wiki would want. --Carnildo 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 25

Misplaced Pages:Advogato

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato

This article was deleted on the assumption that it was an advertising page. In fact, it was intended as a community resource for the subset of wikipedians who have user accounts on advogato to recognise each other. I don't believe that there are any privacy implications of this (there may be with some classes of list of wikipedians), because all of the information was gathered from people who have freely owned up to their editing activity in their advogato diaries, and both classes of user identity may be pseudonymous. I think the article is an asset to a small class of WP editors and should be reinstated. --- Charles Stewart 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment The very good point you raise about cross-referencing utility was mentioned in the original debate by mendel (who made no vote.) Mendel's status here is interesting. If the vote is considered 3-1, I have more faith in it than if it be considered 3-1-1. I'm undecided. Xoloz 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. I don't understand why this article was described as an advertising vehicle. It seems in its latest form to be a means for Advogato members to recognise one another, and track articles about prominent Advogato members (of whom I expect there are a few meriting articles). If its location should be a problem I suggest that it might be undeleted and userfied, perhaps to Charles Stewart's user-space. This is useful organizational information which Advogato members can use to coordinate their work on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• First of all as this was not in the articel space, it should have gone to WP:MD rather than to AfD. However, this is a minor point. The AfD was in process, and of those actually expressing an opnion the count was #:1 for deletion, which is will withing the consensus zone. However, there seems to have been no response to comments that the articel was not advertising, which comments seem to have a basis in fact. Deletion debates should not simnply ignore plausible arguemtns, IMO. Disagree with the, sure. but fail to address them, no. So, Overturn the deletion and list on MD for further discussion, which should consider the arguments that this isn't advertising. DES 18:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:MD did not exist yet at the time of this VFD. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I say there is no viable argument that the page was advertising, since deleting any suspected puffery would have left a useful page. Without a new objection to the page, a WP:MD listing would be a waste of time. --- Charles Stewart 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it isn't done now, it will be done by someone sometime. The forum cannot and will not "immunize" to future AfD. And, it's solid due process, which is almost always a great idea. Xoloz 19:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no suggestiuon of immunizing in my comment: I'm open to other objections to the list, and I anticipated one I am a bit worried about, namely that lists of editors can have malicious intent or unintended consequences. But relisting has to raise valid objections, not objections already shown to be unfounded. --- Charles Stewart 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument may win reprieve for the page, and I hope it does, but it does not, on its own, conclusively prove the earlier objections false. That matter is for the community to decide. Xoloz 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that is a respectable opinion, but it seems to be one that generally involves a lot of predictable waste of time and effort. Since User:Spalsh does actually appear to be seriously maintaining that the purpose of the page was advertising, I suppose you have a point. --- Charles Stewart 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete The above arguments have swayed me. No reason to avoid further discussion with minimal participation previously. Xoloz 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Several reasons: first, there was nowt wrong with the process, nor any suggestion that anything might be different if the information in the nomination here were included. Second, it's not an article so there's not really any content argument to be had. Thirdly, it included blatant advertising language at the top of it. Fourthly, if anything, make yourselves a category rather than a page, like Category:Wikipedian members of Advogato or something and fifthly, consider making a WikiProject instead. That is, this page wasn't the right place for what was being done, there are other, better places for it, and so this place need not be restored. -Splash 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say what language appeared at the top of the page through its history, since without administrator privileges I cannot see the page, but I believe that what I originally wrote was not puffery, but instead a brief explanation as to what Advogato is, for the benefit of wikipedians who do not know. It should be perfectly clear that that sentence was not the point of the page. There were several problems with the AfD:

1. It named the wrong article (it was called Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato but proposed deleting Misplaced Pages:Advogato);
   • The top of the VFD clearly states it's about Misplaced Pages:Advogato. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Nonetheless the page is called Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato and not Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Advogato. It's pretty much trivial, but isn't that a mistake? --- Charles Stewart 17:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, this was how the 'system' (possibly MediaWiki) named such subpages at the time. I don't know why. But it's irrelevant anyway. The link went to the right place. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

2. It was listed as an AfD when as a WP namespace article when it should have been listed on the lengthier WP:MD process page;
   • WP:MD did not exist yet at time of this VFD. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
   • This is starting to sound like clutching at straws. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
     • Had a longer listing been correct, I might have seen the AfD before it closed. This would have been a serious point. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. The count claimed an unproblematic consensus with a 3-to-1 vote, when a cogent objection to the grounds for deletion was raised by a non-voting participant; note the discomfort of many admins with 75% votes being seen as marking a consensus, this being one reason that VfD was renamed AfD;
4. The principle of correction ws not applied: since only one sentence appears to have provoked the AfD, why was that one sentence not simply deleted? This appears to me an abuse of the AfD process.

   What? Presumably, because the nominator thought it needed deleting rather than 'correcting'. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Presumably he did, but what the nominator thought was wrong with the article constituted a small propertion of the text of that page, and easily corrected, if such a text could indeed constitute advertising. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
5. The grounds for deletion were in fact wrong.

   Not according to all-but-one of the people involved in the debate. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Are you now claiming that the original purpose of the page was in fact advertising? And hence accuse me of lying? Please note that (i) I believe I created the article and wrote the text in question and (ii) no one else has made either offensive claim in this DR. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nowt wrong with the process"? I don't think so. --- Charles Stewart 14:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, I wish to point out that the first two of these objections are moot as the VfD was closed on 16 August 2005 while WP:MD was not created until 27 August 2005 in preparation for the VfD → AfD move. The third object is clearly a matter of interpretation, and the comment in question could just as easily be read as supporting either keeping or deleting the page. --Allen3  14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• On the second point, I stand corrected. I don't see how you have disputed the first point. On the third point, since it was a borderline consensus on a straight vote, shouldn't the ambiguity have been looked at more carefully? I don't think the errors here are serious: I ought to have noticed the AfD, but I don't think this stands as a model of what an AfD shoould be either: there was "summat wrong", and this deletion review is here to look at it. --- Charles Stewart 15:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not borderline at all. Two-thirds is used quite widely, and three-quarters is well inside any discretionary range. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that I considered the category suggestion, but that would not help with matching up WP users with their advogato user identities. If the catergory suggestion is the real reason for deletion, then it should have been aired in the AfD process. --- Charles Stewart 15:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was, but it's become a suggestion now, as has a WikiProject. A project would be fine, it would have the right name, be in the right 'place' and serve the same purpose. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway. I now understand the purpose of this page. The deleted version did read like advertising, though, and in the VFD nobody claimed differently. I'm afraid I still don't see its usefulness in creating an encyclopedia, but I respsect that Chalst finds the page useful. I think the easiest solution would be to userfy it. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. This page is not really advertising, it's a way to correlate Wikipedians to members of a community with an allied purpose. Good way to build community bonds with the Open Source community, which is of no small importance to us. That, and I question whether there was enough input on the AfD for that to have been considered a "consensus to delete". Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there was. The AFD page specifically asks people to refrain from voting if they already agree with a vote's apparent outcome, to avoid unnecesary pileups. Given the high traffic of AFD, one can generally assume that all nominations are subject to much scrutiny. Radiant_>|< 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:AFD100#Votes per article says it's not at all unusual to be in that kind of numeric range, or less.-Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I see we now have Category:User advogato and its subcategories, as well as templates that go on user pages to add users to the categories. That seems fine to me. -Splash 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Once the template becomes known to the advogato users on the deleted page, then that page should become obsolete. Thanks to Tony for creating the template. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, mendel brought up a key point at the midpoint of the debate, after which there was one keep and one delete vote. Not clear what voters were considering, at what point, or what effect new arguments would have on the debate. Quite possibly they would change the result. Send it back for a re-run (on MFD), unless Charles's comment above is meant to be interpreted as withdrawing the undeletion request. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion: in the short term the page is useful. In the medium term, if Tony's template is used, it might be best to turn the page into a redirect to the category page. --- Charles Stewart 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Perfectly reasonable thing to do for a debate with low participation when requested by a well-established Wikipedian in good faith. (I was going to also say redirects to category pages don't work, but that's apparently fixed now. Huzzah!) —Cryptic (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, we've got lists of Wikipedians by age, nationality, birthday and interests in all shapes and sizes. Having this is no different. Undelete, and fix any ad-like language. - Mgm| 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

DMRevolution

I wish to dispute my delete on the grounds that a) the assumptions made upon which the delete was decided were false, and b) I am and always was willing to make any changes suggested to me (but none were.) I've had customers as well as resellers for my company ask why it was deleted, and I have no straight answer for them. Forgive me if I am placing this in the wrong place to be considered--after reading the info given, I believe it is the correct place.

First, the reasons for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_24#DMRevolution

• "advertisement" - I will acceded that my post was not NPOV. It was not 100% positive, and as such was not meant as an advertisement (or at least not a very good one), but it was an encyclopaedic article written by the corporation. If you will undelete it, I will go in, sweep out everything spammy, and henceforth not allow the corporation to moderate at all.
• "not notable" - Our company is the default provider of video for eBay, with major partnerships also with Sanyo and many others. We are a multinational corporation with over 1,000 employees and resellers, and have been around for close to a decade. We have offices in Utah, Tokyo, the Bay Area (in Marin county!), and New York (on Fifth Avenue!). So we are not "not notable," you just weren't previously aware of us.
• "verify that it's not a pyramid scheme" - I know there's a stereotype about any affiliate marketing program, but your preconceived notions are no reason to delete my article. We are 100% legal and unrelated to any type of "pyramid scheme." There are simply no definitions of "pyramid scheme" on the wikipedia, the SEC site, or the FTC site, which we fulfill. We have no required investment, no bonuses solely for signing people up, no inventory, no excited meetings at hotel convention centers, our products are not overpriced relative to the market (we sell them for the same amount in our sister companies). Plus, you have a great number of real pyramid schemes on your website (cf. Freeipods)
• "unimpressive Alexa rank" - Each reseller operates as his own website, and thus the root rank is not accurate. We therefore operate under many domains, each with their own rank.
• "Author claims to be a VP, but links to his personal page as a distributor" - I am actually the VP of DMRevolution, and of its parent company. The main page does not have the informational content that the distributor pages do, so I linked to a "corporation" distributor page. The videos on that page are demos at best. Pointing at a corporation page simply means if someone buys something off that page, the comission goes to the corporation, not any distributor. That's why it was aiming to AM0000005.aspx, not the root. The root page simply doesn't have a shopping cart. So you can call that a salespitch, but it's so passive that I don't see why one would.

Anyway, I will make any changes conditional to my site being undeleted. If you prefer, you can just take it off the "do not recreate" blacklist, and I will promise that no employee of the corporation will edit it. But right now, if someone googles our company, one of the things you see is a bunch of accusations on why we should be blacklisted, and that's just not appropriate, espeically when dealing with international clients.

Thank you for your consideration. Mrcolj 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Completely and utterly valid AfD (4-0), which is all this is about - this isn't to get a second bite of the cherry, so keep deleted. --Kiand 18:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very sympathetic Oy vey, I'm sure the archive of the deletion debate isn't a great thing to have Google bring up. Something should done about that. Also, endorse recreation. Since this happened in May, you should be free to recreate a less commercial article. I don't see a need to overturn the VfD to do this, though. Xoloz 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

He can recreate it any time he wants, though its possible it'd be sent back to AfD, obviously. --Kiand 19:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a good idea to post public warning of possibly controversial recreation somewhere (lest it be speedied), so it's not like his nomination here was a bad idea. Xoloz 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't get the VfD in my Google but no.10 is this Deletion Review debate!! -Splash 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, but allow recreation (the second part is not really part of a DRV comment, but still). There's no reason to reverse the AfD, and no need for the deleted content to be restored to write the new article. It was very strongly leaning in the promotional direction. All of the information given in the nomination, together with careful sourcing and NPOVing will be enough to save the article from speedy re-deletion since it most certainly wouldn't be substantially identical, so long as it was kept efficient and to the encyclopedic facts. The original article is also almost completely unwikified, which, together with its language, makes me wonder if it might have been a copyvio at the time (doesn't appear to be now). -Splash 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the deleted article reads like an ad, and I doubt it would be of use to make a new article. Titoxd 04:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: Misplaced Pages is not the place to notify the world of your company's significance, as Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a tertiary source of information. I.e. others are supposed to be writing about you because your name requires explanation due to the references to you in other media. The deletion debate coming up now instead of a booster piece with Google is what happens if you wish to have Misplaced Pages increase visibility. The concerns are commercial on both sides -- the good and the bad done by a Misplaced Pages article -- and both are alien to the project's goals. If one wishes to argue that a future article might not be deleted, all I can say is that a future article is in the future. The deletion was valid. Geogre 09:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 23

Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity

Challenge to Splash Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.

What he/she writes is:

“Please take the request to: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Misplaced Pages. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”

While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.

I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.

It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.

Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15 Sunday, October 23, 2005

I have moved this up here and formatted it correctly. I have also removed (yet another) copy-paste dump of the lengthy article. Admins can see it for themselves; if an editor thinks it essential in evaluating the AfD, it can be history-only undelete. -Splash 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The nominated article here has existed virtually identically at Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity (AfD), Castro-directed overt and covert operations (AfD), Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity, History of Cuban espionage, Cuba based espionage and destabilization operations and most, if not all, of their talk pages. I have been redeleting under CSD G4, obviously, per the 2 perfectly valid AfDs, which indicate some activity on the author's part. This feels not a little bit like POV pushing to me. My offer to block issues from Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity in particular, and came after three recreations in the article and one in the talk page as well as realising how many other locations this was being tried at (it also followed a much nicer message pointing the editor here). No reason given for undeletion, save a family history, nor any suggestion that the AfD was interpreted wrongly, so keep it(them) deleted. I'm glad I'm still young, however. -Splash 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The author has since pasted the article into the IP's talk page and Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators (yes, verbatim, with a copy of the above complaint). I said I'd block him if he recreated the article again anywhere, so he's taking 24 hours off. -Splash 22:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid deletion, and any negative discussion about any other Wikipedian's age is inappropriate. User:Zoe| 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash's discussion above. Rossami (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the main objection in the AFD hasn't been solved: it does not have references. While the content of the article might be true or not, without outside sources it becomes a candidate for deletion under the No Original Research policy. Might reconsider if that is addressed and the attacks on Splash cease. Titoxd 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't much mind the snide comment: I think it's just classic Professor-v-PhDstudent animus. But saying that I'm from Bath...well...And more seriously I would reconsider my keep-deleted, too, if proper referencing were provided (it has none at all, by the way, but offers two texts as introductory reading). It occurs to me that a prof such as the nominator says he is probably can provide references from peer-reviewed texts that would be a significant help. They might, however, belong better in other articles, as suggested in the first of the AfDs I listed. The article also needs some heavy language-cleaning and a little de-POVvery but those alone wouldn't delete it. -Splash 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Splash, Titoxd. Dottore So 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will try again with a complete set of citations to published text; books are not commonly peer reviewed, but rather sent out to "readers" for evaluation. Keep in mind if you read present references inserted the text to web sites and books (e.g. The Voyage of the Damned, which is an exhaustively researched book) you will find them citing both Cuban government sources, and authors both Castro friendly and Cuban-exiles. However, I will rewrite and add more detail and exhaustive citation list. Did you every hear of Jose Eligio de la Fuente who spied for George Washington, and Juan Mirelles who met with Patrick Henry. Spies by nature are most commonly discrete, and their actions by definition vague and shadowy...Graham Greene for instance was once a real spy, and really did work under the direction of Kim Philby. Hemingway, for a time during WWII had his own spy apparatus, manned by Spanish Republicans living in Havana. When my book comes out you can, if you wish, read of the real spy I was ordered to bury as punishment because I had refused to execute him (El Jigüe, 10/24/2005).

I am now inserting a drastically revised version, please read it first before you decide to delete it or not (El Jigüe, 10/25/2005)

October 21

Arts and Science Students' Union

I request that the Arts and Science Students' Union article be undeleted. The Arts And Science Students union has over 20,000 members and although it is a group under the Students Administrative Council, it is in very few ways actually connected with the organization and deserves to be undeleted and stand on its own. Students (that i know) are also activly in the process of updating and maintaining the stub into a full article.

• Keep Deleted Valid VfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arts and Science Students' Union Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid AfD. Requestor has provided no inforation that was not available during the AfD discussion. --Allen3  11:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per reason mentioned above. *drew 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university don't belong on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Misplaced Pages policy already explicitly spells this out. Bearcat 18:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, they do. Policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted but mention both organizations under University of Toronto and straighten out there. Septentrionalis 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; This article was recomended for deletion under the context of it being a vainity page. However, it in no way falls under the description of a vanity page. Because of this I want to request that it be undeleted, or that someone please help me understand why wikipedia does not allow organizations that have associations with other organizations to have independent articles. Jason Schwartz
  • There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article. A topic that's only relevant to students at one particular university isn't notable enough, because nobody who isn't a student at that university has any need to know anything about it. You can add something to University of Toronto (or, more appropriately, to Students' Administrative Council), but it doesn't deserve its own separate article because it just isn't notable enough. Bearcat 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This statement is false: "There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article." No such policy exists.--Nicodemus75 07:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as said above, it does not merit it's own article but deserves a place under the university of toronto. Maby a little bit or stub explaining the student unions at the university of toronto? -Chickendude 04:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Warning: Use the term you used above again, and I will delete it as a personal attack. User:Zoe| 04:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Warning: "Deletionist" is not a personal attack. Quit grandstanding.--Nicodemus75 07:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to less generic title, then merge and redirect to Students' Administrative Council. I would like to know where policy says that "organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university" should not have articles? I certainly think they may, and there are plenty of examples of notable organisations which only exist at one particular university. Misplaced Pages has many articles on such organisations already, as well as several articles on student unions. I think that is legitimate, but in many cases a merge with the university article or with an article on similar organisations at the same university is the best alternative. Tupsharru 05:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as part of the fight against the vandalism of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete articles". Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Nicodemus75 07:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. Gamaliel 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid AfD. This is yet another case where the recommendations of the AfD should simply be followed. Add a sentence or two to the target article, and be done with it. You get the information included and don't need to stike rabidly inclusionist stances like "every piece of information belongs" when WP:NOT makes very plain that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Splash 10:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Physics and Astronomy Students' Union

I request that the Physics and Astronomy Students' Union article be undeleted. The person who nominated it for speedy deletion misunderstood the scope of the organization and as thus assumed that it would be indefferent to delete. However, as an organization with ties to many physics and astonomy related associations and a strong reputation amoung University of Toronto students, I feel that it is a unique body and is deserving of it's own article. PASU currently has over 2000 members and thousands of Alumni and the article will be added onto in the near future.

• Keep Deleted Valid VfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Physics and Astronomy Students' Union Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid AfD. Requestor has provided no inforation that was not available during the AfD discussion. --Allen3  11:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid AfD. *drew 11:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university don't belong on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Misplaced Pages policy already explicitly spells this out. Bearcat 18:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; This article was recomended for deletion under the context of it being a vainity page. However, it in no way falls under the description of a vanity page. Because of this I want to request that it be undeleted, or that someone please help me understand why wikipedia does not allow organizations that have associations with other organizations to have independent articles. Jason Schwartz
  • There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article. A topic that's only relevant to students at one particular university isn't notable enough, because nobody who isn't a student at that university has any need to know anything about it. You can add something to University of Toronto (or, more appropriately, to Students' Administrative Council), but it doesn't deserve its own separate article because it just isn't notable enough. Bearcat 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided after looking at the "bried" afd, and readin the notes, i feel that this infromation does not deserve it's own article, but a part in the student administration page(as said in the afd) i do not beleive it was a page of vanity, but it does not merit it's own article. Chickendude 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete (Attack removed). The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to less generic title, then merge and redirect to Students' Administrative Council. I would like to know where policy says that "organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university" should not have articles? I certainly think they may, and there are plenty of examples of notable organisations which only exist at one particular university. Misplaced Pages has many articles on such organisations already, as well as several articles on student unions. I think that is legitimate, but in many cases a merge with the university article or with an article on similar organisations at the same university is the best alternative. Tupsharru 05:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as part of the fight against the vandalism of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete articles". Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Nicodemus75 07:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. Gamaliel 08:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per my comments in the related DRV debate just above. -Splash 10:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexercise

I request that

Sexercise: Erotic combination of dance and exercise derived from exotic dance with stylized, controlled, soft, curvy, and flowy movements.

be undeleted and should be added as a dance category. The special moves are new and with an added S to exercise it symbolizes the shape of a woman that uses the exotic dance movement for exercise. This was added to Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy by User:Ledalim. I moved it here, and guessed at the article title. -Splash 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The material is still in the article (which is a bit of a mess, imo). So there's nothing for us to undelete, and nothing that even needs reverting so far as I can tell. -Splash 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can't find any evidence that this article was ever deleted. As Splash says, there's nothing to undelete. However, we should probably warn the contributors to the page that this appears to be an unsourced neologism and that unless the article is quickly cleaned up, it may be nominated for regular deletion. Rossami (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• To be complete, looking at user's talk page and edits, he could also have meant Sexercise: Erotic combination of dance and exercise derived from exotic dance with stylized, controlled, soft, curvy, and flowy movements., what's in a name? This page was indeed deleted Garion1000 18:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, you know I thought I had seen the article before. That is presumably what he wants undeleted. It was, however, a copyright violation and pure+simple advertising, and has alraedy been addded to the far less ridiculously titled article I guessed at here, so can stay deleted on any or all of those grounds. Copyvio status probably means it should be excised from Sexercise, too. -Splash 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the long-name version deleted as an unresolved copyvio. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • and for being the stupidest name for an article ever. -R. fiend 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What about sexorcism? Marskell 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

October 18

Woodroffe Avenue

After the 5-day lag, I count 19kd-18u, but this includes DES as a kd, which he may well not be. Since that would leave it tied, and other editors appear to be treating this as a re-run of the AfD, I'm going to follow Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy and allow this to run an additional 5 days. -Splash 18:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This article was deleted according to a 17 (d) to 8 (k) to 1 (merge) VfD count with the strongest keep arguments being it is "extremely important Ottawa road" and it is "perfectly verifiable". It was deleted, re-recreated, speedy deleted (G4: Re-creation of deleted material) and finally re-created again. The re-creator argues that the article has been "signifigantly upgraded". While this is true he also re-created the deleted material. So I bring it here: is this a legitamite, properly-written article or an over-riding of a VfD outcome? --maclean25 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Edit Summary

• Delete until proper sources (Ministry of Transportation?) can be used to integrate relevant information. This is a notoriously difficult subject to write about. Because this road is not significant (historically, culturally, etc.) it must default to a description of the road (origin, history, uses, characteristics, etc). "Sights on Woodroffe" describes a commuter's experience while traveling along the road (ie. details of someone's commute to work). While the "Features" section more clearly grasps the concept of a road as a piece of an infrastructure system, it is just cruft. But the map and image really help the understading of the article. Finally, let me say this: a road is not a place; it is a line on a map, a strip of asphalt on the ground, a piece of the transportation network, and a piece of city infrastructure. It is the means to achieve an end, but not an end itself. --maclean25 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. 9 to 17 isn't even the standard 2/3rds level needed to deleted a page. Moreover I greatly expanded it during the debate, bringing it from this to its present state. - SimonP 13:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted 17-to-8 (or 9 if you count "merge" as meaning "keep") isn't the world's most overwhelming consensus, but it's well within acceptable limits for a closer to make a judgement call. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid afd. It was close but that's a judgement call of the closer. I feel sorry for Simon though, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Its an interesting debate though with the spinboy crew (including earl et al.) actually voting to keep it - most likely because they are from around that area themselves. Its literally just the school debates - people want to keep what's familiar to them, and it can be difficult for them to tell whether it is really encyclopedic or not. However, from the high turnout (and 17 delete opinions) it seems the community seems to think its not worth keeping - whether that's because they've become jaded with all the roadcruft, because they don't know much about that particular road, or just don't know anything about roads in general is not for us to question. I wish people in these debates would try to communicate those kind of things better then worthless opinions like "Keep roadcruft" or "Delete nn road" Ryan Norton 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and Delete, valid AfD. --fvw* 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strictly speaking this doesn't belong on VfU. This content isn't deleted, and as I understand the history (correct me if I am wrong) It wasn't undeleted, it was re-created, speedied as a recreation, and has now been recreated again with the claim that it has been expanded enough that the prior deletion decision dosn't apply, plus a secondary claim that that decision was incorrect anyway. Have I got the siutuatioon correct? Now if an article is recreated in a form different enough that CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content) does not apply, there is normally no reason for VfU to be involved -- anyone can always renominate for AfD. But if it is speedy deleted under G4 and that is contested, VfU could be involved. I will take this as a sort of advance request to void a G4 Speedy. I just compared the current version with the version that existed during the VfD debate. They seem pretty close to word-for-word identical, except that a single short paragrpah has been added to the end of the current version, as have three refernces. I think that makes this "substantially similar" to the deleted version, adn makes a G4 speedy plausible. However, G4 only applies to "validly deleted" content. If we were to overturn the VfD result, it would not apply. The numbers are marginal for a consensus to delete, but the argumets of thoe favoring delete seem rather stronger to me than those favoring keep. I think this is within the zone of closer judgement, although just barely. Thus I think the deletion was valid. Therefore I reccomend that the current article be re-speedied under G4. Now if the editors of this article stil want such an article to exist, i would advise that they rewrite it so that 1) it truly is not even clse to 'substantially similar" to the deleted version, and 2) that they at least try to address the arguments made in the deletion debate in the new version. An articel recreated in that way will not be subject to G4, and could only be delted after a new AfD debate, in which those favoring it could make all the points they can find. if the previous issues are addressed, it might well not be deleted in a new afd debate. So re-delete under G4. DES 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now tagged this for speedy delete under G4. That will not void this discussion, it can continue as a true undeltion debate. DES 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Re-delete and keep deleted afterwards, valid AFD. I agree with Ryan that closer admins might sometimes be annoyed at votes that do not give any opinion at all. No prejudice against a different new version, though. Titoxd 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• The only criteria under which a city street should ever have its own Misplaced Pages article are:

1. the road is famous enough, for whatever reason, that a person who's never been to the city in their lives and has never seen a map of the city in their lives can still be reasonably expected to have heard of it,
2. the road is so intimately connected to a major historical event that even if the road itself isn't famous, it's necessary as part of the event's full historical context.

Woodroffe does not meet either criterion. Just because an article is prettied up with a photo and a map doesn't make it a valid article; it still has to meet one of those criteria. I've lived in Ottawa, for gawd's sake, and I still just don't see why I should consider how many lanes Woodroffe has or its weird intersection with Carling to be information that belongs in an encyclopedia. I'm a mapgeek, for God's sake, and I still don't see why 99.99 per cent of local city streets should have articles. And I'm not Ottawa-bashing -- there are plenty of Ottawa streets I'd vote to keep under the criteria I listed; Woodroffe just isn't one of them. Delete unless somebody can actually come up with a far more convincing argument in favour of city streets than "anything that exists deserves an article". Bearcat 18:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. mikka (t) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Woodroffe_Avenue. Additionally, in my interpretation the original AfD was 15d and 7k, giving 68 percent for deletion, which I do not feel is enough consensus for deletion. However, I have re-deleted the article and protected the page, pending the outcome of this VfU. Ëvilphoenix 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If the standard is 2/3, 68 per cent meets that. Bearcat 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. While hardly a strong consensus, anything at 66% or over is IMO within the zone of judgement of the closer. Particualrly with fairly high participation, IMO, the required percentage can decrease to a degree (at 4D/2K I am rather less comfortable than at 20D/10K). And the quality of the arguments made can be taken into account, AfD is supposed to be a debate as well as a pure vote, isn't it? You might not close as a delete at 68%, but I don't think that is enough to over-ride a good-faith closing by another admin. DES 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article generated quite a bit of participation, which is good. It also appears to have generated a lot of discussion, which is also good. But when I closed this AFD it seemed to me that most of the arguing done on the keep side was overwhelmingly represented by Earl Andrew. Some others weighed in also, but a primary driver of much of the discussion on the keep side was coming from him (and Spinboy to a lesser extent). Less so, I felt, with folks who voted delete -- while Bearcat engaged Earl Andrew a fair bit toward the end, in general, a larger variety of those who voted to delete engaged in the threaded discussion. Therefore, I did not feel that those who voted to keep had a strong enough position to ignore a well-turned-out vote that met the 2/3rds threshold for rough consensus. · Katefan0 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; there was no irregularity about the original deletion, as 17 d to 8 k is a legitimate (better than 2/3rds) delete closure, and should have been left to the closing admins discretion.--Scimitar 19:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Looking at the latest version I see that it's a much-enhanced article. Keeping this deleted goes against the spirit of allowing new articles to be created in place of deleted ones. At the very least put the current version back on AfD and see how it fares. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'll have to take on faith the assertion of the creator (and the acceptance of the nominator) that the article was signficantly expanded, and thus not a valid speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "Much enhanced" compared to which version? The version of "08:34, 24 September 2005" (which is 5 days prior to the AfD close, and 2 days before the last AfD comment) is practically word for word identical with the most current version available, except for the addition of one short (2-3 sentance) paragrpah at the very end, plus three cited references. I have done a detailed comparison of these two versions. Why should something that went through a perfectly valid AfD which got well above average participation and a reasonable (if not huge) consensus to delete be relisted? If it is, why shouldn't every AfD Debate with 68% to delete and under 25 voters be relisted automatically? DES 20:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your analysis doesn't really address the problem; okay, not much was added, but I could add a few words to an article and change it from a speedy delete to a clear keep. Did the new information address the primary problem of non-notability? I don't know. The nominator acknowledges that the article was "significantly upgraded." It sounds like it should go through AFD again. Also, I endorse Encephalon's comments below. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I, the nominator, agreed with the "significantly upgraded" comment because of an inclusion of a map (well, figure representing the road and its cross-streets). This one simple figure summarized most of the info trying to be explained in text. My deletionist attitude towards road articles stems from that feature. Roads are best explained/described on maps. Unless a historical/social commentary can be made, they make for terrible for prose. --maclean25 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. First, an appeal to editors who happen to have a few extra buttons: please do not undelete, redelete, unilaterally open closed AFDs and re-edit them, and wheel war. This is unhelpful. Use the standard processes of wikipedia to conduct your business. The buttons are provided to you to protect the encyclopedia from vandals and to execute the consensus of the community, with their permission. Nothing else, please. Second, I do not understand the original AFD close. It was 17D 8K 1M. This means the % support for D is 17/26 which is <67%. If you have limits like two-thirds or four-fifths of opinions, they only make sense if you stick to them. If you think that there is a good reason to WP:IAR, you need to explain clearly why you're doing so, and what other policy or reason you're invoking that you feel is important enough for you to perform the action. I hope all editors who close boderline AFDs especially will consider saying a few words about their decision (see some of Splash's closes for example). However, Katefan (who, I must say, rocks unbelievably :)) provides an explanation here: one voter on the keep side was especially vociferous in making his points. I can see how this can be somewhat significant; however, I cannot see that this is a reason to discount any other keep vote, and as nothing suggests that that was done, I do not understand the close. It is well to remember that in close decisions it is especially important to be very clear and careful. I have no problem at all with close decisions—but their bases must be solid. Thirdly, with respect to the recreation, it attempts to address the most important weakness of the original. It is referenced to three documents, which apparently provide a basis for verifiability; as they are all offline I cannot verify this for myself for now, but it is not unreasonable to expect that the stated documents provide some verification of the claims. The way the article is written strongly suggests some unencyclopedic writing ± original research, but these can probably be rectified via simple editing. Whether the article needs to demonstrate a greater claim than verifiability is a decision for the community to make via AFD. Here, the most important issue is that G4 does not apply: a recreation that addresses an important article-policy weakness in the original is not substantially identical to the original. We need to be extremely careful with applying G4, because intemperate application of that (very important) rule is anti-wiki and can unfairly stop genuine improvements from being judged or accepted by the community. Undelete. encephalon 20:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because apart from three bullet points or so, and two sentences the article is verbatim to that deleted. These minor changes were made to a restored article, not a rewritten one. -Splash 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I belive part of the reason the afd fell towards 'delete' was because the 'delete' side presented more and more solid arguments. That is, it just wasn't number of votes. --maclean25 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure, that might be so. But what I'm saying is that in such cases these things should be spelled out a little clearly—most especially here, because the delete decision was reached with a less than two thirds delete consensus (based on the raw vote). If a closer finds reasons to delete/keep particularly compelling, we should be told what they were and why. I've said before that admin decisions should not consist of simply totting up raw votes, but ought to consider the strength of the comments and arguments. Where this results in a deviation from rough consensus, an explanation is always in order. Splash: you may be right. I'm judging this based on memory of the recreation and history, prior to the page protect, and IIRC there were two new paras and 3 government reports for sources. Now, if one reason an article was judged inappropriate was that it did not satisfy WP:V, an action taken to mend that is significant. It's important to remember that post-(valid)AFD, the only way to introduce material on the subject to WP is to address the concerns of the AFD in a rewrite; I'm hesistant to use G4 where a clear attempt has been made and the article improved for it. On the other hand, a major rephrasing of an article that nevertheless didn't do a shred to address the articlespace policies that the original violated will not impress me. encephalon 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The closure was entirely within admin discretion, we all know that, and no-one appears to be attempting to challenge the point. To the G4 point, the only two relevant revisions are those prior to the first deletion and, effectively, the last one before the latest addition of the speedy tag. The others are by definition identical since they were mindlessly restored rather than rewritten. I count a few references and a couple of sentences difference and otherwise identicality verbatim. All the deletions were valid, and there are no grounds for undeletion, save whimsy, perhaps. -Splash 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll challenge that point. 66% is generally considered the minimum needed to delete a page, this article did not have this. Remember that merge is explicitly a form of keep vote, as noted on Guide_to_deletion. - SimonP 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if you reduce it to counting alone, it is still within discretion as much as not deleting until you get to some arbitrarily high percentage. The discretion thing cuts both ways. -Splash 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't feel the argument behind the merge vote was terribly strong and as such I didn't count it toward either extreme. The editor didn't speak to the merits or demerits of this article itself, rather his comments were about wanting to create an article within which to merge different sorts of roads. · Katefan0 22:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete per Tony Sidaway. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this falls well within limits of admin discretion. Besides, the information in this article is far more easily represented as a map, and we all know that Misplaced Pages can contain pictures of maps. Let's add such a map to Nepean, Ottawa, and redirecting this article there. Radiant_>|< 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. My findings substantially match Splash's, et al. The expanded version was visible during the original discussion period. The changes were not sufficient to cause the "deletes" to change their minds. While this was a close call, it was within acceptable bounds of admin discretion. Please remember that we are not voting and that closers are not only allowed but required to use the discussion comments to guide and weight their decision.
  I'll add that had I been the one to close this discussion I would likely have discounted one of the "keep" votes as a bad-faith edit by a suspected troll. Katefan0 appears to have used reasonable discretion in making this call.
  However, the debate could have been closed more clearly. I know that it can be very time-consuming but if Katefan0 had explained his/her reasoning in detail, we might have avoided this dispute. As a lesson for the future, closers should always take the time to show their work, especially on a close call. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• undelete' this please simonpc did a lot of work to make this article better so we should keep it Yuckfoo 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD with the decision within traditional norms for admin discretion. --Allen3  22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Locally important and verifiable is sufficient. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete per Christopher Parnham, and go ahead and relist on AfD. I am unable to view deleted articles, but I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on the part of those who claim to have expanded this. Unfocused 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, subject of article was verifiable and after discounting the usual "nn, d." votes the AfD comes out as a no consensus keep. I believe Tony Sidaway and others when they say that the article improved significantly. Alphax  01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Valid AFD --JAranda | watz sup 03:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD, with more than enough discussion and votes to make it so. And based on the AfD discussion, I can't imagine what "vast improvements" could possibly have been made to a new version of the article that would have been overlooked in the original AfD: no one came up with any argument stronger than "it's a busy street in a certain neighborhood in Ottawa", so what magical bit transformed Woodroffe Avenue 2.0 into a suddenly worthy addition? --Calton | Talk 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. The AFD was about a shorter article, while this one was significantly expanded. Expanding something even when keeping part of the previously deleted material is perfectly valid. Just relist it on AFD, but you can't keep this deleted based on a outdated AFD. - Mgm| 11:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. With the wafer thin numerical consensus to delete and the improvement of the article after many of the delete votes (recall that voters rarely come back to change their vote) it seems highly appropriate here to act on the safe side and restore the article. Often it is true that an afd is "valid" but nevertheless short of ideal. Seems to be the case here. (Note I have undeleted one revision - visible only from the history tab - to allow non-admins to see what the fuss is about). Pcb21| Pete 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist The AfD was valid, but the parties most concerned both agree that the new content is significantly improved, so no speedy is called for. In a pinch, give the article a second chance. Xoloz 18:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you weren't fooled by the peacock terms used in the nomination. --maclean25 (at work)
• Keep Deleted Initial discussion was very thorough and the consensus to delete was sufficiently strong. Dottore So 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete due to lack of consensus and being an arterial road. --SPUI (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete because it does no harm. The deletion was done in process, as far as we have one. The article is accurate and of good quality. The road is notable enought to have some tens of thousands of google hits (the top one being to the AfD - lets change that!), and there is no armay of road-crufters waiting to use the undeletion as an excuse to load millions of roads onto the 'pedia. Rich Farmbrough 00:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Like this, maybe?: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject California County Routes --Calton | Talk 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • <Grin.> but see participants.Rich Farmbrough 10:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete --Cloveious 05:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and expand. Was deleted without consensus. Was improved during the interim. Passes the Bajoran wormhole test. Pedant 20:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean the road is fictional? :) --Gmaxwell 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It appears clear that VFD did was it was supposted to do. The article fails to establish notability. ... I wish we had a wikitriviabook project to act as an outlet for every little fact that people want to document. --Gmaxwell 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. With less than a two thirds majority for deletion, some sort of explanation as to why this was closed as a "delete" rather than a "no consensus" would have been in order. Such closes are sometimes in order, but the closer should in such situations explain why they are doing so. Without that, I think it best that we have a second debate over this. Also, after reviewing the article, this road appears to be one of the main arteries of the city. I have also seen that the article was expanded during the course of the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it had exactly a 2/3 vote for deletion, not less than 2/3. Bearcat 07:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope. Sjakkalle is correct. 17/26 =~ 65.38% < 2/3. This was less than 2/3, fwiw. Xoloz 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait, when did Misplaced Pages become a democracy? Why does 2/3 majority matter? "The discussion iteself is more important than the statistics." Please read the arguments for and against as you are counting votes. --maclean25 19:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Sjakkalle. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Question: where can I read the "signifigantly upgraded" version of the page? -- Corvus 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The upgrade edit has been deleted but this here is the article in question. --maclean25 00:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh?! Is viewing diffs on deleted articles a new feature? -Splash 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And for clarity's sake, the diff is from during the AfD debate, rather than the difference between the originally deleted and latterly speedied article. -Splash 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Pilatus 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

After the 5-day lag, I count 19kd-18u, but this includes DES as a kd, which he may well not be. Since that would leave it tied, and other editors appear to be treating this as a re-run of the AfD, I'm going to follow Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy and allow this to run an additional 5 days. -Splash 18:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, valid AfD closure. User:Zoe| 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete (and, of course) relist. I won't take the time to disentangle the all the minutiae of process. What I'm seeing is that a) the vote was close; b) Katefan0's closure looks valid to me; c) nevertheless, User:SimonP's changes look nontrivial; d) not being a road expert I don't know how to judge accuracy or how to verify the content, but the result has the look and feel of a pretty good article. I tend to like high-quality articles on practically any subject. Usually when I check statements that "the article was vastly improved during the closing minutes of AfD" I do not find myself in agreement, but in this case I do. The image and diagram add quite a lot. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While the revised article is larger, it is still nothing more than an attempt to describe a map in prose. This is a fundamentally flawed concept, no one is going to find a location or get directions by reading something like this. If you want a map, you can get detailed real-time info from Google maps. -- Corvus 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD; and it's just another road. -R. fiend 03:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (I had added my vote several days ago, but it seems to have disappeared into a void.) There were plenty of opinions expressed in the original AfD, so I'll try to summarize.
  • Reasons to delete:
    • road is not notable
    • article is unencyclopedic
    • road lacks historical and cultural significance
    • this is simply a roadmap in prose; a map serves the purpose much more efficiently
    • the information would better belong in an Infrastructure of Ottawa article
    • having a high volume of traffic with respect to roads in the surrounding community is not sufficient to warrant an article
    • there is nothing that is unique to this road that would merit an article
  • Reasons to keep:
    • road is verifiable
    • road is a major street in Ottawa, with high traffic volume
    • road is Nepean's Main Street (this is disputed though, as it refers only to traffic, not economy or culture)
  • I think the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments to keep. (If I've missed anything, please add it.) Hence, I don't think the article should be restored. Mindmatrix 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • • If the information belongs in an Infrastructure of Ottawa article, then it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. "Items that should be merged" is not a valid reason to delete in the first place. Unfocused 14:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Clarification Splash commented above that he wasn't sure that I was truly of the view that this should be kept deleted. I was and am, and I thoguht my earlier long comment made that clear. I outlines wayus in which a rewritten articel could be created and need not go through this process, adn I opined that the current version should be speedied as a recreation of previously validly deleted content. I still think it should be speeied, ut the tag I put on was removed byu another editor, and i won't get into a revert war over it. But if someone else were to tag it, i wouldn't hesitate to do the deletion. So, to make myself clear, my view above was, and still is Keep deleted with no prejudiuce agaisnt the later creation of a substantially different artilce that addresses the conerns raised at AfD. DES 15:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid Vfd.  Grue  18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. Nandesuka 11:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision to delete. Next time an explanation would be good, eh? - brenneman 08:05, 27 October 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.

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

• WP:DELREVD

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.

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

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".

October 27

Template:Support

Deleted four months ago through a TfD process. However, since then the situation changed and most of the arguments against it were proved wrong. Among the most notable reasons why it should be undeleted:

• It's obligatory at the commons and used with success at the Featured pic voting there

  The argument that the usage of {{Support}} instead of *'''Support''' makes people vote instead of discussing things has been proven wrong by the fact that the discussions at Commons:Featured picture candidates are not shorter or longer than at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates

  There are still people who are willing to use the template and find it both useful and nice, and nobody has posted any reason why should they be banned from doing so

  The argument of high bandwidth usage has been proven wrong since all browsers load the image only once, and not as many times as it is shown on a page. Also the page loading times of commons' FPC and its wiki counterpart show no differences

Halibutt 13:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

October 26

Ones Discotheque

I wish to have this page undeleted. The article only contained history of the club and the various entities tied to the club. The club has not be open since the early 80's, but the information is historically accurate. I know this because I was the owner.

• Before we embark on a discussion on "adverts aren't speedies", note that WP:VAND defines spam as vandalism, but rests that criterion on external links. This doesn't have external links. However, for non-admins, I reproduce a sample of the article, since it was a speedy:

  Did you know...

  That every Saturday afternoon was the first ever Disco Tot? Parents brought their children to dance and eat hot dogs, sit at the bar, and dance under the neon lights!

  Ones was voted by Vogue magazine as one of the top 10 discos in the world!

  Ones manufactured all its own neon lights in the basement of the club.

  etc etc for 10 lines total.

• This is pretty obviously an indiscriminate collection of information. The nominator should probably know that this article, as it stood before speedy deletion, hasn't got a prayer when taken through the regular deletion process — not a prayer. I would thus choose keep deleted because any other option is needless bureaucracy. I do acknowledge, however, that the case for speedying this is very weak within CSD policy. As such, if an alternative article were rewritten with a decent attempt at making an encyclopedic contribution, it would not be a speedy, but should still be taken to AfD, imo. -Splash 03:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What was I thinking? Xoloz below is quite correct. The article is context-free, although some of the bullet points do imply that it may be in New York, NY. -Splash 06:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can understand why this was speedied, and think its probably a case of lack of context. Without being given a location, or the nature and name of the business explicitly, the reproduced content is simply hard to understand. Endorse decision to speedy. Feel free to rewrite the entry with context, making it clear what and where the club was, and it won't be speedied (it will be AfD'ed, I'm sure). Xoloz 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Splash, it is just a list of random facts, prohibited by WP:NOT. Endorse decision to speedy. Titoxd 06:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted I doubt that this is really much of a speedy candidate: a club closed 25 years ago can't really be advertised, and the content (though arguably quite trivial) doesn't match my perception of an A1/no-context article either. The reason I'm voting to keep deleted rather than undelete is that with no Google hits besides WP & mirrors, this article wouldn't stand a snowball's chance of passing an AfD vote, and undeleting it would be a mere beaurocratic exercise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yggdrasil festival

I wish to have this page undelted. It was stated that it was deleted because it was of unimportance and only an advertisement for a "local" festival. The 2005 Yggdrasil Festival was an innaugural event that raised funding for music and art education in the MN public school system. The festival was a non-profit event that brought in over 3,000 festival-goers(from aroud the country) and 12 bands--including PHIX--from Colorado and Karl Denson's Tiny Universe--from California. Our headlining band, Karl Denson's Tiny Universe, is one of the most popular funk/jazz bands in the world. Please, check out their website and see that they are one of the most talented touring bands around: www.karldenson.com. The "Yggdrasil festival" adds depth to Misplaced Pages and helps promote grassroots fundraising for our underfunded public programs in Minnesota. I started the festival along with my fiancee and we work and donate our time with absolutely no financial compensation, and it is through great sites such as Misplaced Pages, that our festival is able to flourish and generate funding for our cause. The Yggdrasil festival will be back next year offering over 30 bands that will play during 3 days and 4 nights. We hope to raise over $100,000.00 for art and music education in the MN public school system next year. Please, reconsider undeleting this page. Thanks --Mgehring.

• Keep deleted. AfD is here, and is very valid. As the AfD nomination and other participants say, this does appear to be basically an advert. The nomination here confirms that fact. WP:ISNOT advertising space, to allow you to "flourish and generate funding for our cause". You need to do that somewhere else, I'm afraid. The people appearing at the festival don't matter all that much (though they do some) since the festival should be notable in its own right, although getting lots of famous people would help. However, the numbers attending it were moderately large (though smaller than what I would hazard might be 'notable') and so this might pass an AfD after next year's event if its public profile has expanded by then. -Splash 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer's decision. Splash is correct. Misplaced Pages is not a place to promote causes or events, however worthy. Once your event is sufficiently large and establsihed to be notable, then wikipedia can and should include an article on it. If you have (now or in future) citeable evidence for notability (such as non-local news coverage) that would be a good reason to include such an article. DES 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (for now at least). Mgehring for something to be on Misplaced Pages it has to be verifyable. I'm sorry but we are an encylopedia, we are not in the business of providing advertising for your event. It doesn't matter how much you hope to raise or how worthy your cause, our criteria are "does wikipedia benefit from having the article?" not "does the festival benefit?" Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Mgehring I am not "promoting" the event on Misplaced Pages, I am simply providing an outlet for information regarding the festival--the same as many other festivals do on wikipedia. The page was originally deleted for being "non-notable" and having "non-notable musical acts" and a "local event". The festival featured 5 national touring bands, 2 international touring bands and a handful of VERY talented "local" acts from MINNEAPOLIS--one of the musical hotbeds of this great nation. The festival was produced as a national event and had every aspect that any other national event had. User:Mgehring The Misplaced Pages page was also done very tastefully and was updated with photos from the event--again--informational--not advertisement. Please--check out the festival website(www.yggdrasilfestival.com)--compare it to any other festival site and then post back here that it is "non-notable"--compare this festival to others that are still here on Misplaced Pages--there is no difference! Under "Current Rock Festivals" you list JamCruise--please check out the Jam Cruise website and see who is headlining---KARL DENSON'S TINY UNIVERSE--not a band that would play a "local" event. Yggdrasil Festival also dwarfed "NedFest", while at the same time raised money for a great cause, which is also listed as a "current festival"--why is NedFest not also deleted??

• Endorse closer/Keep Deleted Valid AfD. I would argue that almost no festival is notable as an "annual event" until it has been established for at least two event-cycles. In the absence of such continuity, there is practical doubt as to whether it is really annual (as any experienced local organizers know, many of these things fail to thrive.) The cause is a good one, but I have fundamental verifiability issues, quite apart from the ad question. If you Nedfest is similar to your festival but similar smaller, consider nominating it for deletion. I will examine right now. Xoloz 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For interested parties, I have nominated NedFest for deletion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/NedFest. Xoloz 05:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• As the closer, I will not put in a vote here. The decision to delete was an easy one (unanimous delete), so there will definitely be no Able and Baker-type self-overturning of the debate here. I wish to express my agreement with the others who have pointed out that Misplaced Pages is not an advertisment service. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Boeing B-9

This article seems to have been deleted by mistake during an attemped page move. Susvolans ⇔ 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I restored Boeing B-9 and reverted Boeing Y1B-9 to the original redirect. The redirect had been replaced with a stub when an editor found the broken redirect. Could probably just have dropped a note to the deleting admin's talk page to get this done. -Splash 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Pinocchio and FooT

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pinocchio_and_FooT

I request that the Pinocchio and FooT entry be reinstated. As the artist, I can vouch for the fact that the comic was distributed during the seventies in Salt Lake City in several schools. The article was not a hoax. True, the comic/webcomic may not be notable in the sense that it gets millions (or hundreds) of hits. And perhaps it is better suited for comixpedia. Still, I want to insist that it is not a hoax. I would further like to note that the comment "come on" from one editor seems to be a very weak reason for deletion. Also, I did not write the original article. A fan did. I only modified it when it was brought to my attention. (Jscoombs 06:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

• I moved nomination to the correct date. Keep deleted valid Afd, given relisting time (and commend Redwolf24 on relisting). No substantial argument given that process was incorrect, or that content had merit not before considered. Xoloz 06:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closer's decision. - brenneman 06:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I get the format wrong. I contribute rarely to Misplaced Pages. I also request that Pinocchio and FooT be reinstated. I am the person being parodied by the Ferret character. Richard Olson, a faculty member at the University of Iowa medical school is the person being parodied by the Pinocchio character. I can also vouch for the facts in the article. I still have my original copies of Pinocchio and FooT from the 70's. I have assigned Pinocchio and FooT as extra credit for my Materials Science course for several years. There are several years' worth of students at Harvey Mudd College who would be disappointed to discover the P & F article had been deleted. I had assumed that Misplaced Pages was the place to find factual but esoteric information. I may have been mistaken. Prof. R. Erik Spjut, Harvey Mudd College

• Keep Deleted Valid VfD with no keep votes... it even got a second five-day run and still nobody voted to keep it. Personally, I think the hoax-or-not issue is of little relevance to its inclusion, even if every word was true it still wouldn't be notable enough to be kept. A comic "circulated" through schools in one town just isn't the sort of thing that gets put in an encyclopedia. I think the transwiki suggestion has merit though. If you need the text of the article to transwiki it to comixpedia, let me know and I'll send it to you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse (keep deleted) — I closed the AfD on this article: it was not an easy close. One of the things that made the closing difficult was that I felt the content was of a length and minimal quality better than many other AfD's. However, I noted that the AfD was opened on 1 October, relisted on the 15 October and closed on 22 October. During that long run, no one voted to keep the article. The only request other than delete was to transwiki to comixpedia. The standard transwiki procedure wouldn't work for comixpedia, and it's really up to those withan interest in either comixpedia or the article to perform the task. Therefore, I felt deletion was the clear consensus. --Gareth Hughes 15:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am truly sorry I did not understand that a prerequisite for contributing to wikipedia is a constant monitoring of articles for their continued existence. For this reason the commentary period came and went without my vote for non-deletion. I apologize for my ignorance and for not devoting more time learning the inner workings of your site. Perhaps someday I will better understand the "wiki way." I would like to thank the kind editor who did indeed transwiki the article to comixpedia so that only the article's history was lost. "All ... forms of consensus about great books and perennial problems, once stabilized, tend to deteriorate eventually into something philistine." (Susan Sonntag)

-- Jscoombs 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it applies here, but that is a handy quotation, I must say. :) Xoloz 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Huh, that needs fixing. You can't copy GFDL'd text without providing a copy of the history somewhere. It needs to be pasted into the Comixpedia talk page, or something. -Splash 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closer (keep deleted) - valid AfD - this just supports the closing - Tεxτurε 18:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close (keep deleted). After a relisting, and spending three weeks on AfD, there was no support for retaining the article, and there was nothing apparently wrong with the AfD process, or with the closure. The suggestion above that the nominator here was unaware of the debate is a reason to re-run the AfD, but only if there is some suggestion that he might have swung the debate. Only the nominator mentioned the possibility of a hoax; the other participants did not (oh, apart from the 'per nom', I suppose) and no new information has been offered here. -Splash 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, but it looks like the sort of thing the Comixpedia wiki would want. --Carnildo 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 25

Misplaced Pages:Advogato

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato

This article was deleted on the assumption that it was an advertising page. In fact, it was intended as a community resource for the subset of wikipedians who have user accounts on advogato to recognise each other. I don't believe that there are any privacy implications of this (there may be with some classes of list of wikipedians), because all of the information was gathered from people who have freely owned up to their editing activity in their advogato diaries, and both classes of user identity may be pseudonymous. I think the article is an asset to a small class of WP editors and should be reinstated. --- Charles Stewart 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment The very good point you raise about cross-referencing utility was mentioned in the original debate by mendel (who made no vote.) Mendel's status here is interesting. If the vote is considered 3-1, I have more faith in it than if it be considered 3-1-1. I'm undecided. Xoloz 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. I don't understand why this article was described as an advertising vehicle. It seems in its latest form to be a means for Advogato members to recognise one another, and track articles about prominent Advogato members (of whom I expect there are a few meriting articles). If its location should be a problem I suggest that it might be undeleted and userfied, perhaps to Charles Stewart's user-space. This is useful organizational information which Advogato members can use to coordinate their work on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• First of all as this was not in the articel space, it should have gone to WP:MD rather than to AfD. However, this is a minor point. The AfD was in process, and of those actually expressing an opnion the count was #:1 for deletion, which is will withing the consensus zone. However, there seems to have been no response to comments that the articel was not advertising, which comments seem to have a basis in fact. Deletion debates should not simnply ignore plausible arguemtns, IMO. Disagree with the, sure. but fail to address them, no. So, Overturn the deletion and list on MD for further discussion, which should consider the arguments that this isn't advertising. DES 18:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:MD did not exist yet at the time of this VFD. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I say there is no viable argument that the page was advertising, since deleting any suspected puffery would have left a useful page. Without a new objection to the page, a WP:MD listing would be a waste of time. --- Charles Stewart 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it isn't done now, it will be done by someone sometime. The forum cannot and will not "immunize" to future AfD. And, it's solid due process, which is almost always a great idea. Xoloz 19:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no suggestiuon of immunizing in my comment: I'm open to other objections to the list, and I anticipated one I am a bit worried about, namely that lists of editors can have malicious intent or unintended consequences. But relisting has to raise valid objections, not objections already shown to be unfounded. --- Charles Stewart 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument may win reprieve for the page, and I hope it does, but it does not, on its own, conclusively prove the earlier objections false. That matter is for the community to decide. Xoloz 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that is a respectable opinion, but it seems to be one that generally involves a lot of predictable waste of time and effort. Since User:Spalsh does actually appear to be seriously maintaining that the purpose of the page was advertising, I suppose you have a point. --- Charles Stewart 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete The above arguments have swayed me. No reason to avoid further discussion with minimal participation previously. Xoloz 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Several reasons: first, there was nowt wrong with the process, nor any suggestion that anything might be different if the information in the nomination here were included. Second, it's not an article so there's not really any content argument to be had. Thirdly, it included blatant advertising language at the top of it. Fourthly, if anything, make yourselves a category rather than a page, like Category:Wikipedian members of Advogato or something and fifthly, consider making a WikiProject instead. That is, this page wasn't the right place for what was being done, there are other, better places for it, and so this place need not be restored. -Splash 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say what language appeared at the top of the page through its history, since without administrator privileges I cannot see the page, but I believe that what I originally wrote was not puffery, but instead a brief explanation as to what Advogato is, for the benefit of wikipedians who do not know. It should be perfectly clear that that sentence was not the point of the page. There were several problems with the AfD:

1. It named the wrong article (it was called Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato but proposed deleting Misplaced Pages:Advogato);
   • The top of the VFD clearly states it's about Misplaced Pages:Advogato. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Nonetheless the page is called Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advogato and not Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Advogato. It's pretty much trivial, but isn't that a mistake? --- Charles Stewart 17:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, this was how the 'system' (possibly MediaWiki) named such subpages at the time. I don't know why. But it's irrelevant anyway. The link went to the right place. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

2. It was listed as an AfD when as a WP namespace article when it should have been listed on the lengthier WP:MD process page;
   • WP:MD did not exist yet at time of this VFD. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
   • This is starting to sound like clutching at straws. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
     • Had a longer listing been correct, I might have seen the AfD before it closed. This would have been a serious point. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. The count claimed an unproblematic consensus with a 3-to-1 vote, when a cogent objection to the grounds for deletion was raised by a non-voting participant; note the discomfort of many admins with 75% votes being seen as marking a consensus, this being one reason that VfD was renamed AfD;
4. The principle of correction ws not applied: since only one sentence appears to have provoked the AfD, why was that one sentence not simply deleted? This appears to me an abuse of the AfD process.

   What? Presumably, because the nominator thought it needed deleting rather than 'correcting'. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Presumably he did, but what the nominator thought was wrong with the article constituted a small propertion of the text of that page, and easily corrected, if such a text could indeed constitute advertising. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
5. The grounds for deletion were in fact wrong.

   Not according to all-but-one of the people involved in the debate. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Are you now claiming that the original purpose of the page was in fact advertising? And hence accuse me of lying? Please note that (i) I believe I created the article and wrote the text in question and (ii) no one else has made either offensive claim in this DR. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nowt wrong with the process"? I don't think so. --- Charles Stewart 14:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, I wish to point out that the first two of these objections are moot as the VfD was closed on 16 August 2005 while WP:MD was not created until 27 August 2005 in preparation for the VfD → AfD move. The third object is clearly a matter of interpretation, and the comment in question could just as easily be read as supporting either keeping or deleting the page. --Allen3  14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• On the second point, I stand corrected. I don't see how you have disputed the first point. On the third point, since it was a borderline consensus on a straight vote, shouldn't the ambiguity have been looked at more carefully? I don't think the errors here are serious: I ought to have noticed the AfD, but I don't think this stands as a model of what an AfD shoould be either: there was "summat wrong", and this deletion review is here to look at it. --- Charles Stewart 15:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not borderline at all. Two-thirds is used quite widely, and three-quarters is well inside any discretionary range. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that I considered the category suggestion, but that would not help with matching up WP users with their advogato user identities. If the catergory suggestion is the real reason for deletion, then it should have been aired in the AfD process. --- Charles Stewart 15:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was, but it's become a suggestion now, as has a WikiProject. A project would be fine, it would have the right name, be in the right 'place' and serve the same purpose. -Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway. I now understand the purpose of this page. The deleted version did read like advertising, though, and in the VFD nobody claimed differently. I'm afraid I still don't see its usefulness in creating an encyclopedia, but I respsect that Chalst finds the page useful. I think the easiest solution would be to userfy it. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. This page is not really advertising, it's a way to correlate Wikipedians to members of a community with an allied purpose. Good way to build community bonds with the Open Source community, which is of no small importance to us. That, and I question whether there was enough input on the AfD for that to have been considered a "consensus to delete". Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there was. The AFD page specifically asks people to refrain from voting if they already agree with a vote's apparent outcome, to avoid unnecesary pileups. Given the high traffic of AFD, one can generally assume that all nominations are subject to much scrutiny. Radiant_>|< 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:AFD100#Votes per article says it's not at all unusual to be in that kind of numeric range, or less.-Splash 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I see we now have Category:User advogato and its subcategories, as well as templates that go on user pages to add users to the categories. That seems fine to me. -Splash 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Once the template becomes known to the advogato users on the deleted page, then that page should become obsolete. Thanks to Tony for creating the template. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, mendel brought up a key point at the midpoint of the debate, after which there was one keep and one delete vote. Not clear what voters were considering, at what point, or what effect new arguments would have on the debate. Quite possibly they would change the result. Send it back for a re-run (on MFD), unless Charles's comment above is meant to be interpreted as withdrawing the undeletion request. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion: in the short term the page is useful. In the medium term, if Tony's template is used, it might be best to turn the page into a redirect to the category page. --- Charles Stewart 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Perfectly reasonable thing to do for a debate with low participation when requested by a well-established Wikipedian in good faith. (I was going to also say redirects to category pages don't work, but that's apparently fixed now. Huzzah!) —Cryptic (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, we've got lists of Wikipedians by age, nationality, birthday and interests in all shapes and sizes. Having this is no different. Undelete, and fix any ad-like language. - Mgm| 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

DMRevolution

I wish to dispute my delete on the grounds that a) the assumptions made upon which the delete was decided were false, and b) I am and always was willing to make any changes suggested to me (but none were.) I've had customers as well as resellers for my company ask why it was deleted, and I have no straight answer for them. Forgive me if I am placing this in the wrong place to be considered--after reading the info given, I believe it is the correct place.

First, the reasons for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_24#DMRevolution

• "advertisement" - I will acceded that my post was not NPOV. It was not 100% positive, and as such was not meant as an advertisement (or at least not a very good one), but it was an encyclopaedic article written by the corporation. If you will undelete it, I will go in, sweep out everything spammy, and henceforth not allow the corporation to moderate at all.
• "not notable" - Our company is the default provider of video for eBay, with major partnerships also with Sanyo and many others. We are a multinational corporation with over 1,000 employees and resellers, and have been around for close to a decade. We have offices in Utah, Tokyo, the Bay Area (in Marin county!), and New York (on Fifth Avenue!). So we are not "not notable," you just weren't previously aware of us.
• "verify that it's not a pyramid scheme" - I know there's a stereotype about any affiliate marketing program, but your preconceived notions are no reason to delete my article. We are 100% legal and unrelated to any type of "pyramid scheme." There are simply no definitions of "pyramid scheme" on the wikipedia, the SEC site, or the FTC site, which we fulfill. We have no required investment, no bonuses solely for signing people up, no inventory, no excited meetings at hotel convention centers, our products are not overpriced relative to the market (we sell them for the same amount in our sister companies). Plus, you have a great number of real pyramid schemes on your website (cf. Freeipods)
• "unimpressive Alexa rank" - Each reseller operates as his own website, and thus the root rank is not accurate. We therefore operate under many domains, each with their own rank.
• "Author claims to be a VP, but links to his personal page as a distributor" - I am actually the VP of DMRevolution, and of its parent company. The main page does not have the informational content that the distributor pages do, so I linked to a "corporation" distributor page. The videos on that page are demos at best. Pointing at a corporation page simply means if someone buys something off that page, the comission goes to the corporation, not any distributor. That's why it was aiming to AM0000005.aspx, not the root. The root page simply doesn't have a shopping cart. So you can call that a salespitch, but it's so passive that I don't see why one would.

Anyway, I will make any changes conditional to my site being undeleted. If you prefer, you can just take it off the "do not recreate" blacklist, and I will promise that no employee of the corporation will edit it. But right now, if someone googles our company, one of the things you see is a bunch of accusations on why we should be blacklisted, and that's just not appropriate, espeically when dealing with international clients.

Thank you for your consideration. Mrcolj 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Completely and utterly valid AfD (4-0), which is all this is about - this isn't to get a second bite of the cherry, so keep deleted. --Kiand 18:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very sympathetic Oy vey, I'm sure the archive of the deletion debate isn't a great thing to have Google bring up. Something should done about that. Also, endorse recreation. Since this happened in May, you should be free to recreate a less commercial article. I don't see a need to overturn the VfD to do this, though. Xoloz 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

He can recreate it any time he wants, though its possible it'd be sent back to AfD, obviously. --Kiand 19:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a good idea to post public warning of possibly controversial recreation somewhere (lest it be speedied), so it's not like his nomination here was a bad idea. Xoloz 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't get the VfD in my Google but no.10 is this Deletion Review debate!! -Splash 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, but allow recreation (the second part is not really part of a DRV comment, but still). There's no reason to reverse the AfD, and no need for the deleted content to be restored to write the new article. It was very strongly leaning in the promotional direction. All of the information given in the nomination, together with careful sourcing and NPOVing will be enough to save the article from speedy re-deletion since it most certainly wouldn't be substantially identical, so long as it was kept efficient and to the encyclopedic facts. The original article is also almost completely unwikified, which, together with its language, makes me wonder if it might have been a copyvio at the time (doesn't appear to be now). -Splash 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the deleted article reads like an ad, and I doubt it would be of use to make a new article. Titoxd 04:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: Misplaced Pages is not the place to notify the world of your company's significance, as Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a tertiary source of information. I.e. others are supposed to be writing about you because your name requires explanation due to the references to you in other media. The deletion debate coming up now instead of a booster piece with Google is what happens if you wish to have Misplaced Pages increase visibility. The concerns are commercial on both sides -- the good and the bad done by a Misplaced Pages article -- and both are alien to the project's goals. If one wishes to argue that a future article might not be deleted, all I can say is that a future article is in the future. The deletion was valid. Geogre 09:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

October 23

Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity

Challenge to Splash Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.

What he/she writes is:

“Please take the request to: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Misplaced Pages. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”

While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.

I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.

It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.

Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15 Sunday, October 23, 2005

I have moved this up here and formatted it correctly. I have also removed (yet another) copy-paste dump of the lengthy article. Admins can see it for themselves; if an editor thinks it essential in evaluating the AfD, it can be history-only undelete. -Splash 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The nominated article here has existed virtually identically at Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity (AfD), Castro-directed overt and covert operations (AfD), Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity, History of Cuban espionage, Cuba based espionage and destabilization operations and most, if not all, of their talk pages. I have been redeleting under CSD G4, obviously, per the 2 perfectly valid AfDs, which indicate some activity on the author's part. This feels not a little bit like POV pushing to me. My offer to block issues from Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity in particular, and came after three recreations in the article and one in the talk page as well as realising how many other locations this was being tried at (it also followed a much nicer message pointing the editor here). No reason given for undeletion, save a family history, nor any suggestion that the AfD was interpreted wrongly, so keep it(them) deleted. I'm glad I'm still young, however. -Splash 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The author has since pasted the article into the IP's talk page and Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators (yes, verbatim, with a copy of the above complaint). I said I'd block him if he recreated the article again anywhere, so he's taking 24 hours off. -Splash 22:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid deletion, and any negative discussion about any other Wikipedian's age is inappropriate. User:Zoe| 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash's discussion above. Rossami (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the main objection in the AFD hasn't been solved: it does not have references. While the content of the article might be true or not, without outside sources it becomes a candidate for deletion under the No Original Research policy. Might reconsider if that is addressed and the attacks on Splash cease. Titoxd 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't much mind the snide comment: I think it's just classic Professor-v-PhDstudent animus. But saying that I'm from Bath...well...And more seriously I would reconsider my keep-deleted, too, if proper referencing were provided (it has none at all, by the way, but offers two texts as introductory reading). It occurs to me that a prof such as the nominator says he is probably can provide references from peer-reviewed texts that would be a significant help. They might, however, belong better in other articles, as suggested in the first of the AfDs I listed. The article also needs some heavy language-cleaning and a little de-POVvery but those alone wouldn't delete it. -Splash 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Splash, Titoxd. Dottore So 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will try again with a complete set of citations to published text; books are not commonly peer reviewed, but rather sent out to "readers" for evaluation. Keep in mind if you read present references inserted the text to web sites and books (e.g. The Voyage of the Damned, which is an exhaustively researched book) you will find them citing both Cuban government sources, and authors both Castro friendly and Cuban-exiles. However, I will rewrite and add more detail and exhaustive citation list. Did you every hear of Jose Eligio de la Fuente who spied for George Washington, and Juan Mirelles who met with Patrick Henry. Spies by nature are most commonly discrete, and their actions by definition vague and shadowy...Graham Greene for instance was once a real spy, and really did work under the direction of Kim Philby. Hemingway, for a time during WWII had his own spy apparatus, manned by Spanish Republicans living in Havana. When my book comes out you can, if you wish, read of the real spy I was ordered to bury as punishment because I had refused to execute him (El Jigüe, 10/24/2005).

I am now inserting a drastically revised version, please read it first before you decide to delete it or not (El Jigüe, 10/25/2005)

October 21

Arts and Science Students' Union

I request that the Arts and Science Students' Union article be undeleted. The Arts And Science Students union has over 20,000 members and although it is a group under the Students Administrative Council, it is in very few ways actually connected with the organization and deserves to be undeleted and stand on its own. Students (that i know) are also activly in the process of updating and maintaining the stub into a full article.

• Keep Deleted Valid VfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arts and Science Students' Union Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid AfD. Requestor has provided no inforation that was not available during the AfD discussion. --Allen3  11:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per reason mentioned above. *drew 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university don't belong on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Misplaced Pages policy already explicitly spells this out. Bearcat 18:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, they do. Policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted but mention both organizations under University of Toronto and straighten out there. Septentrionalis 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; This article was recomended for deletion under the context of it being a vainity page. However, it in no way falls under the description of a vanity page. Because of this I want to request that it be undeleted, or that someone please help me understand why wikipedia does not allow organizations that have associations with other organizations to have independent articles. Jason Schwartz
  • There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article. A topic that's only relevant to students at one particular university isn't notable enough, because nobody who isn't a student at that university has any need to know anything about it. You can add something to University of Toronto (or, more appropriately, to Students' Administrative Council), but it doesn't deserve its own separate article because it just isn't notable enough. Bearcat 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This statement is false: "There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article." No such policy exists.--Nicodemus75 07:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as said above, it does not merit it's own article but deserves a place under the university of toronto. Maby a little bit or stub explaining the student unions at the university of toronto? -Chickendude 04:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Warning: Use the term you used above again, and I will delete it as a personal attack. User:Zoe| 04:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Warning: "Deletionist" is not a personal attack. Quit grandstanding.--Nicodemus75 07:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to less generic title, then merge and redirect to Students' Administrative Council. I would like to know where policy says that "organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university" should not have articles? I certainly think they may, and there are plenty of examples of notable organisations which only exist at one particular university. Misplaced Pages has many articles on such organisations already, as well as several articles on student unions. I think that is legitimate, but in many cases a merge with the university article or with an article on similar organisations at the same university is the best alternative. Tupsharru 05:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as part of the fight against the vandalism of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete articles". Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Nicodemus75 07:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. Gamaliel 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid AfD. This is yet another case where the recommendations of the AfD should simply be followed. Add a sentence or two to the target article, and be done with it. You get the information included and don't need to stike rabidly inclusionist stances like "every piece of information belongs" when WP:NOT makes very plain that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Splash 10:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Physics and Astronomy Students' Union

I request that the Physics and Astronomy Students' Union article be undeleted. The person who nominated it for speedy deletion misunderstood the scope of the organization and as thus assumed that it would be indefferent to delete. However, as an organization with ties to many physics and astonomy related associations and a strong reputation amoung University of Toronto students, I feel that it is a unique body and is deserving of it's own article. PASU currently has over 2000 members and thousands of Alumni and the article will be added onto in the near future.

• Keep Deleted Valid VfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Physics and Astronomy Students' Union Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid AfD. Requestor has provided no inforation that was not available during the AfD discussion. --Allen3  11:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid AfD. *drew 11:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university don't belong on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Misplaced Pages policy already explicitly spells this out. Bearcat 18:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; This article was recomended for deletion under the context of it being a vainity page. However, it in no way falls under the description of a vanity page. Because of this I want to request that it be undeleted, or that someone please help me understand why wikipedia does not allow organizations that have associations with other organizations to have independent articles. Jason Schwartz
  • There are standards of notability that an organization has to meet to deserve its own Misplaced Pages article. A topic that's only relevant to students at one particular university isn't notable enough, because nobody who isn't a student at that university has any need to know anything about it. You can add something to University of Toronto (or, more appropriately, to Students' Administrative Council), but it doesn't deserve its own separate article because it just isn't notable enough. Bearcat 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided after looking at the "bried" afd, and readin the notes, i feel that this infromation does not deserve it's own article, but a part in the student administration page(as said in the afd) i do not beleive it was a page of vanity, but it does not merit it's own article. Chickendude 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete (Attack removed). The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to less generic title, then merge and redirect to Students' Administrative Council. I would like to know where policy says that "organizations that only serve a subset of students at one particular university" should not have articles? I certainly think they may, and there are plenty of examples of notable organisations which only exist at one particular university. Misplaced Pages has many articles on such organisations already, as well as several articles on student unions. I think that is legitimate, but in many cases a merge with the university article or with an article on similar organisations at the same university is the best alternative. Tupsharru 05:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as part of the fight against the vandalism of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete articles". Any bit of information is proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Nicodemus75 07:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. Gamaliel 08:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per my comments in the related DRV debate just above. -Splash 10:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexercise

I request that

Sexercise: Erotic combination of dance and exercise derived from exotic dance with stylized, controlled, soft, curvy, and flowy movements.

be undeleted and should be added as a dance category. The special moves are new and with an added S to exercise it symbolizes the shape of a woman that uses the exotic dance movement for exercise. This was added to Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy by User:Ledalim. I moved it here, and guessed at the article title. -Splash 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The material is still in the article (which is a bit of a mess, imo). So there's nothing for us to undelete, and nothing that even needs reverting so far as I can tell. -Splash 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can't find any evidence that this article was ever deleted. As Splash says, there's nothing to undelete. However, we should probably warn the contributors to the page that this appears to be an unsourced neologism and that unless the article is quickly cleaned up, it may be nominated for regular deletion. Rossami (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• To be complete, looking at user's talk page and edits, he could also have meant Sexercise: Erotic combination of dance and exercise derived from exotic dance with stylized, controlled, soft, curvy, and flowy movements., what's in a name? This page was indeed deleted Garion1000 18:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, you know I thought I had seen the article before. That is presumably what he wants undeleted. It was, however, a copyright violation and pure+simple advertising, and has alraedy been addded to the far less ridiculously titled article I guessed at here, so can stay deleted on any or all of those grounds. Copyvio status probably means it should be excised from Sexercise, too. -Splash 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the long-name version deleted as an unresolved copyvio. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • and for being the stupidest name for an article ever. -R. fiend 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What about sexorcism? Marskell 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

October 18

Woodroffe Avenue

After the 5-day lag, I count 19kd-18u, but this includes DES as a kd, which he may well not be. Since that would leave it tied, and other editors appear to be treating this as a re-run of the AfD, I'm going to follow Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy and allow this to run an additional 5 days. -Splash 18:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This article was deleted according to a 17 (d) to 8 (k) to 1 (merge) VfD count with the strongest keep arguments being it is "extremely important Ottawa road" and it is "perfectly verifiable". It was deleted, re-recreated, speedy deleted (G4: Re-creation of deleted material) and finally re-created again. The re-creator argues that the article has been "signifigantly upgraded". While this is true he also re-created the deleted material. So I bring it here: is this a legitamite, properly-written article or an over-riding of a VfD outcome? --maclean25 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Edit Summary

• Delete until proper sources (Ministry of Transportation?) can be used to integrate relevant information. This is a notoriously difficult subject to write about. Because this road is not significant (historically, culturally, etc.) it must default to a description of the road (origin, history, uses, characteristics, etc). "Sights on Woodroffe" describes a commuter's experience while traveling along the road (ie. details of someone's commute to work). While the "Features" section more clearly grasps the concept of a road as a piece of an infrastructure system, it is just cruft. But the map and image really help the understading of the article. Finally, let me say this: a road is not a place; it is a line on a map, a strip of asphalt on the ground, a piece of the transportation network, and a piece of city infrastructure. It is the means to achieve an end, but not an end itself. --maclean25 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. 9 to 17 isn't even the standard 2/3rds level needed to deleted a page. Moreover I greatly expanded it during the debate, bringing it from this to its present state. - SimonP 13:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted 17-to-8 (or 9 if you count "merge" as meaning "keep") isn't the world's most overwhelming consensus, but it's well within acceptable limits for a closer to make a judgement call. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid afd. It was close but that's a judgement call of the closer. I feel sorry for Simon though, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Its an interesting debate though with the spinboy crew (including earl et al.) actually voting to keep it - most likely because they are from around that area themselves. Its literally just the school debates - people want to keep what's familiar to them, and it can be difficult for them to tell whether it is really encyclopedic or not. However, from the high turnout (and 17 delete opinions) it seems the community seems to think its not worth keeping - whether that's because they've become jaded with all the roadcruft, because they don't know much about that particular road, or just don't know anything about roads in general is not for us to question. I wish people in these debates would try to communicate those kind of things better then worthless opinions like "Keep roadcruft" or "Delete nn road" Ryan Norton 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and Delete, valid AfD. --fvw* 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strictly speaking this doesn't belong on VfU. This content isn't deleted, and as I understand the history (correct me if I am wrong) It wasn't undeleted, it was re-created, speedied as a recreation, and has now been recreated again with the claim that it has been expanded enough that the prior deletion decision dosn't apply, plus a secondary claim that that decision was incorrect anyway. Have I got the siutuatioon correct? Now if an article is recreated in a form different enough that CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content) does not apply, there is normally no reason for VfU to be involved -- anyone can always renominate for AfD. But if it is speedy deleted under G4 and that is contested, VfU could be involved. I will take this as a sort of advance request to void a G4 Speedy. I just compared the current version with the version that existed during the VfD debate. They seem pretty close to word-for-word identical, except that a single short paragrpah has been added to the end of the current version, as have three refernces. I think that makes this "substantially similar" to the deleted version, adn makes a G4 speedy plausible. However, G4 only applies to "validly deleted" content. If we were to overturn the VfD result, it would not apply. The numbers are marginal for a consensus to delete, but the argumets of thoe favoring delete seem rather stronger to me than those favoring keep. I think this is within the zone of closer judgement, although just barely. Thus I think the deletion was valid. Therefore I reccomend that the current article be re-speedied under G4. Now if the editors of this article stil want such an article to exist, i would advise that they rewrite it so that 1) it truly is not even clse to 'substantially similar" to the deleted version, and 2) that they at least try to address the arguments made in the deletion debate in the new version. An articel recreated in that way will not be subject to G4, and could only be delted after a new AfD debate, in which those favoring it could make all the points they can find. if the previous issues are addressed, it might well not be deleted in a new afd debate. So re-delete under G4. DES 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now tagged this for speedy delete under G4. That will not void this discussion, it can continue as a true undeltion debate. DES 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Re-delete and keep deleted afterwards, valid AFD. I agree with Ryan that closer admins might sometimes be annoyed at votes that do not give any opinion at all. No prejudice against a different new version, though. Titoxd 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• The only criteria under which a city street should ever have its own Misplaced Pages article are:

1. the road is famous enough, for whatever reason, that a person who's never been to the city in their lives and has never seen a map of the city in their lives can still be reasonably expected to have heard of it,
2. the road is so intimately connected to a major historical event that even if the road itself isn't famous, it's necessary as part of the event's full historical context.

Woodroffe does not meet either criterion. Just because an article is prettied up with a photo and a map doesn't make it a valid article; it still has to meet one of those criteria. I've lived in Ottawa, for gawd's sake, and I still just don't see why I should consider how many lanes Woodroffe has or its weird intersection with Carling to be information that belongs in an encyclopedia. I'm a mapgeek, for God's sake, and I still don't see why 99.99 per cent of local city streets should have articles. And I'm not Ottawa-bashing -- there are plenty of Ottawa streets I'd vote to keep under the criteria I listed; Woodroffe just isn't one of them. Delete unless somebody can actually come up with a far more convincing argument in favour of city streets than "anything that exists deserves an article". Bearcat 18:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. mikka (t) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Woodroffe_Avenue. Additionally, in my interpretation the original AfD was 15d and 7k, giving 68 percent for deletion, which I do not feel is enough consensus for deletion. However, I have re-deleted the article and protected the page, pending the outcome of this VfU. Ëvilphoenix 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If the standard is 2/3, 68 per cent meets that. Bearcat 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. While hardly a strong consensus, anything at 66% or over is IMO within the zone of judgement of the closer. Particualrly with fairly high participation, IMO, the required percentage can decrease to a degree (at 4D/2K I am rather less comfortable than at 20D/10K). And the quality of the arguments made can be taken into account, AfD is supposed to be a debate as well as a pure vote, isn't it? You might not close as a delete at 68%, but I don't think that is enough to over-ride a good-faith closing by another admin. DES 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article generated quite a bit of participation, which is good. It also appears to have generated a lot of discussion, which is also good. But when I closed this AFD it seemed to me that most of the arguing done on the keep side was overwhelmingly represented by Earl Andrew. Some others weighed in also, but a primary driver of much of the discussion on the keep side was coming from him (and Spinboy to a lesser extent). Less so, I felt, with folks who voted delete -- while Bearcat engaged Earl Andrew a fair bit toward the end, in general, a larger variety of those who voted to delete engaged in the threaded discussion. Therefore, I did not feel that those who voted to keep had a strong enough position to ignore a well-turned-out vote that met the 2/3rds threshold for rough consensus. · Katefan0 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; there was no irregularity about the original deletion, as 17 d to 8 k is a legitimate (better than 2/3rds) delete closure, and should have been left to the closing admins discretion.--Scimitar 19:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Looking at the latest version I see that it's a much-enhanced article. Keeping this deleted goes against the spirit of allowing new articles to be created in place of deleted ones. At the very least put the current version back on AfD and see how it fares. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'll have to take on faith the assertion of the creator (and the acceptance of the nominator) that the article was signficantly expanded, and thus not a valid speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "Much enhanced" compared to which version? The version of "08:34, 24 September 2005" (which is 5 days prior to the AfD close, and 2 days before the last AfD comment) is practically word for word identical with the most current version available, except for the addition of one short (2-3 sentance) paragrpah at the very end, plus three cited references. I have done a detailed comparison of these two versions. Why should something that went through a perfectly valid AfD which got well above average participation and a reasonable (if not huge) consensus to delete be relisted? If it is, why shouldn't every AfD Debate with 68% to delete and under 25 voters be relisted automatically? DES 20:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your analysis doesn't really address the problem; okay, not much was added, but I could add a few words to an article and change it from a speedy delete to a clear keep. Did the new information address the primary problem of non-notability? I don't know. The nominator acknowledges that the article was "significantly upgraded." It sounds like it should go through AFD again. Also, I endorse Encephalon's comments below. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I, the nominator, agreed with the "significantly upgraded" comment because of an inclusion of a map (well, figure representing the road and its cross-streets). This one simple figure summarized most of the info trying to be explained in text. My deletionist attitude towards road articles stems from that feature. Roads are best explained/described on maps. Unless a historical/social commentary can be made, they make for terrible for prose. --maclean25 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. First, an appeal to editors who happen to have a few extra buttons: please do not undelete, redelete, unilaterally open closed AFDs and re-edit them, and wheel war. This is unhelpful. Use the standard processes of wikipedia to conduct your business. The buttons are provided to you to protect the encyclopedia from vandals and to execute the consensus of the community, with their permission. Nothing else, please. Second, I do not understand the original AFD close. It was 17D 8K 1M. This means the % support for D is 17/26 which is <67%. If you have limits like two-thirds or four-fifths of opinions, they only make sense if you stick to them. If you think that there is a good reason to WP:IAR, you need to explain clearly why you're doing so, and what other policy or reason you're invoking that you feel is important enough for you to perform the action. I hope all editors who close boderline AFDs especially will consider saying a few words about their decision (see some of Splash's closes for example). However, Katefan (who, I must say, rocks unbelievably :)) provides an explanation here: one voter on the keep side was especially vociferous in making his points. I can see how this can be somewhat significant; however, I cannot see that this is a reason to discount any other keep vote, and as nothing suggests that that was done, I do not understand the close. It is well to remember that in close decisions it is especially important to be very clear and careful. I have no problem at all with close decisions—but their bases must be solid. Thirdly, with respect to the recreation, it attempts to address the most important weakness of the original. It is referenced to three documents, which apparently provide a basis for verifiability; as they are all offline I cannot verify this for myself for now, but it is not unreasonable to expect that the stated documents provide some verification of the claims. The way the article is written strongly suggests some unencyclopedic writing ± original research, but these can probably be rectified via simple editing. Whether the article needs to demonstrate a greater claim than verifiability is a decision for the community to make via AFD. Here, the most important issue is that G4 does not apply: a recreation that addresses an important article-policy weakness in the original is not substantially identical to the original. We need to be extremely careful with applying G4, because intemperate application of that (very important) rule is anti-wiki and can unfairly stop genuine improvements from being judged or accepted by the community. Undelete. encephalon 20:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because apart from three bullet points or so, and two sentences the article is verbatim to that deleted. These minor changes were made to a restored article, not a rewritten one. -Splash 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I belive part of the reason the afd fell towards 'delete' was because the 'delete' side presented more and more solid arguments. That is, it just wasn't number of votes. --maclean25 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure, that might be so. But what I'm saying is that in such cases these things should be spelled out a little clearly—most especially here, because the delete decision was reached with a less than two thirds delete consensus (based on the raw vote). If a closer finds reasons to delete/keep particularly compelling, we should be told what they were and why. I've said before that admin decisions should not consist of simply totting up raw votes, but ought to consider the strength of the comments and arguments. Where this results in a deviation from rough consensus, an explanation is always in order. Splash: you may be right. I'm judging this based on memory of the recreation and history, prior to the page protect, and IIRC there were two new paras and 3 government reports for sources. Now, if one reason an article was judged inappropriate was that it did not satisfy WP:V, an action taken to mend that is significant. It's important to remember that post-(valid)AFD, the only way to introduce material on the subject to WP is to address the concerns of the AFD in a rewrite; I'm hesistant to use G4 where a clear attempt has been made and the article improved for it. On the other hand, a major rephrasing of an article that nevertheless didn't do a shred to address the articlespace policies that the original violated will not impress me. encephalon 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The closure was entirely within admin discretion, we all know that, and no-one appears to be attempting to challenge the point. To the G4 point, the only two relevant revisions are those prior to the first deletion and, effectively, the last one before the latest addition of the speedy tag. The others are by definition identical since they were mindlessly restored rather than rewritten. I count a few references and a couple of sentences difference and otherwise identicality verbatim. All the deletions were valid, and there are no grounds for undeletion, save whimsy, perhaps. -Splash 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll challenge that point. 66% is generally considered the minimum needed to delete a page, this article did not have this. Remember that merge is explicitly a form of keep vote, as noted on Guide_to_deletion. - SimonP 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if you reduce it to counting alone, it is still within discretion as much as not deleting until you get to some arbitrarily high percentage. The discretion thing cuts both ways. -Splash 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't feel the argument behind the merge vote was terribly strong and as such I didn't count it toward either extreme. The editor didn't speak to the merits or demerits of this article itself, rather his comments were about wanting to create an article within which to merge different sorts of roads. · Katefan0 22:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete per Tony Sidaway. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this falls well within limits of admin discretion. Besides, the information in this article is far more easily represented as a map, and we all know that Misplaced Pages can contain pictures of maps. Let's add such a map to Nepean, Ottawa, and redirecting this article there. Radiant_>|< 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. My findings substantially match Splash's, et al. The expanded version was visible during the original discussion period. The changes were not sufficient to cause the "deletes" to change their minds. While this was a close call, it was within acceptable bounds of admin discretion. Please remember that we are not voting and that closers are not only allowed but required to use the discussion comments to guide and weight their decision.
  I'll add that had I been the one to close this discussion I would likely have discounted one of the "keep" votes as a bad-faith edit by a suspected troll. Katefan0 appears to have used reasonable discretion in making this call.
  However, the debate could have been closed more clearly. I know that it can be very time-consuming but if Katefan0 had explained his/her reasoning in detail, we might have avoided this dispute. As a lesson for the future, closers should always take the time to show their work, especially on a close call. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• undelete' this please simonpc did a lot of work to make this article better so we should keep it Yuckfoo 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD with the decision within traditional norms for admin discretion. --Allen3  22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Locally important and verifiable is sufficient. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete per Christopher Parnham, and go ahead and relist on AfD. I am unable to view deleted articles, but I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on the part of those who claim to have expanded this. Unfocused 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, subject of article was verifiable and after discounting the usual "nn, d." votes the AfD comes out as a no consensus keep. I believe Tony Sidaway and others when they say that the article improved significantly. Alphax  01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Valid AFD --JAranda | watz sup 03:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD, with more than enough discussion and votes to make it so. And based on the AfD discussion, I can't imagine what "vast improvements" could possibly have been made to a new version of the article that would have been overlooked in the original AfD: no one came up with any argument stronger than "it's a busy street in a certain neighborhood in Ottawa", so what magical bit transformed Woodroffe Avenue 2.0 into a suddenly worthy addition? --Calton | Talk 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. The AFD was about a shorter article, while this one was significantly expanded. Expanding something even when keeping part of the previously deleted material is perfectly valid. Just relist it on AFD, but you can't keep this deleted based on a outdated AFD. - Mgm| 11:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. With the wafer thin numerical consensus to delete and the improvement of the article after many of the delete votes (recall that voters rarely come back to change their vote) it seems highly appropriate here to act on the safe side and restore the article. Often it is true that an afd is "valid" but nevertheless short of ideal. Seems to be the case here. (Note I have undeleted one revision - visible only from the history tab - to allow non-admins to see what the fuss is about). Pcb21| Pete 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist The AfD was valid, but the parties most concerned both agree that the new content is significantly improved, so no speedy is called for. In a pinch, give the article a second chance. Xoloz 18:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you weren't fooled by the peacock terms used in the nomination. --maclean25 (at work)
• Keep Deleted Initial discussion was very thorough and the consensus to delete was sufficiently strong. Dottore So 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete due to lack of consensus and being an arterial road. --SPUI (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete because it does no harm. The deletion was done in process, as far as we have one. The article is accurate and of good quality. The road is notable enought to have some tens of thousands of google hits (the top one being to the AfD - lets change that!), and there is no armay of road-crufters waiting to use the undeletion as an excuse to load millions of roads onto the 'pedia. Rich Farmbrough 00:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Like this, maybe?: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject California County Routes --Calton | Talk 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • <Grin.> but see participants.Rich Farmbrough 10:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete --Cloveious 05:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and expand. Was deleted without consensus. Was improved during the interim. Passes the Bajoran wormhole test. Pedant 20:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean the road is fictional? :) --Gmaxwell 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It appears clear that VFD did was it was supposted to do. The article fails to establish notability. ... I wish we had a wikitriviabook project to act as an outlet for every little fact that people want to document. --Gmaxwell 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. With less than a two thirds majority for deletion, some sort of explanation as to why this was closed as a "delete" rather than a "no consensus" would have been in order. Such closes are sometimes in order, but the closer should in such situations explain why they are doing so. Without that, I think it best that we have a second debate over this. Also, after reviewing the article, this road appears to be one of the main arteries of the city. I have also seen that the article was expanded during the course of the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it had exactly a 2/3 vote for deletion, not less than 2/3. Bearcat 07:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope. Sjakkalle is correct. 17/26 =~ 65.38% < 2/3. This was less than 2/3, fwiw. Xoloz 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait, when did Misplaced Pages become a democracy? Why does 2/3 majority matter? "The discussion iteself is more important than the statistics." Please read the arguments for and against as you are counting votes. --maclean25 19:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Sjakkalle. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Question: where can I read the "signifigantly upgraded" version of the page? -- Corvus 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The upgrade edit has been deleted but this here is the article in question. --maclean25 00:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh?! Is viewing diffs on deleted articles a new feature? -Splash 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And for clarity's sake, the diff is from during the AfD debate, rather than the difference between the originally deleted and latterly speedied article. -Splash 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Pilatus 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

After the 5-day lag, I count 19kd-18u, but this includes DES as a kd, which he may well not be. Since that would leave it tied, and other editors appear to be treating this as a re-run of the AfD, I'm going to follow Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy and allow this to run an additional 5 days. -Splash 18:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, valid AfD closure. User:Zoe| 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete (and, of course) relist. I won't take the time to disentangle the all the minutiae of process. What I'm seeing is that a) the vote was close; b) Katefan0's closure looks valid to me; c) nevertheless, User:SimonP's changes look nontrivial; d) not being a road expert I don't know how to judge accuracy or how to verify the content, but the result has the look and feel of a pretty good article. I tend to like high-quality articles on practically any subject. Usually when I check statements that "the article was vastly improved during the closing minutes of AfD" I do not find myself in agreement, but in this case I do. The image and diagram add quite a lot. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While the revised article is larger, it is still nothing more than an attempt to describe a map in prose. This is a fundamentally flawed concept, no one is going to find a location or get directions by reading something like this. If you want a map, you can get detailed real-time info from Google maps. -- Corvus 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD; and it's just another road. -R. fiend 03:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (I had added my vote several days ago, but it seems to have disappeared into a void.) There were plenty of opinions expressed in the original AfD, so I'll try to summarize.
  • Reasons to delete:
    • road is not notable
    • article is unencyclopedic
    • road lacks historical and cultural significance
    • this is simply a roadmap in prose; a map serves the purpose much more efficiently
    • the information would better belong in an Infrastructure of Ottawa article
    • having a high volume of traffic with respect to roads in the surrounding community is not sufficient to warrant an article
    • there is nothing that is unique to this road that would merit an article
  • Reasons to keep:
    • road is verifiable
    • road is a major street in Ottawa, with high traffic volume
    • road is Nepean's Main Street (this is disputed though, as it refers only to traffic, not economy or culture)
  • I think the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments to keep. (If I've missed anything, please add it.) Hence, I don't think the article should be restored. Mindmatrix 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • • If the information belongs in an Infrastructure of Ottawa article, then it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. "Items that should be merged" is not a valid reason to delete in the first place. Unfocused 14:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Clarification Splash commented above that he wasn't sure that I was truly of the view that this should be kept deleted. I was and am, and I thoguht my earlier long comment made that clear. I outlines wayus in which a rewritten articel could be created and need not go through this process, adn I opined that the current version should be speedied as a recreation of previously validly deleted content. I still think it should be speeied, ut the tag I put on was removed byu another editor, and i won't get into a revert war over it. But if someone else were to tag it, i wouldn't hesitate to do the deletion. So, to make myself clear, my view above was, and still is Keep deleted with no prejudiuce agaisnt the later creation of a substantially different artilce that addresses the conerns raised at AfD. DES 15:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid Vfd.  Grue  18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. Nandesuka 11:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision to delete. Next time an explanation would be good, eh? - brenneman 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance