Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 5 July 2006

5 July 2006

Eon8

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eon8 (2nd nomination) demonstrates a clear consensus to keep, which should be obvious from a quick glance. Overturn.  Grue  14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Delete Many keep votes were put forth with no rationale, rationale which had no link to Misplaced Pages guidelines, or even "it's hard for me to put my explanation into words."

The only keep rationale put forth which actually relates to Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, WP:WEB and/or WP:MEME is the newspaper article which is allegedly in Politiken, a Danish newspaper, which is offered as evidence of non-trivial coverage.

As noted by Bwithh, no other media coverage was found in a search of a large commercial database, in addition Google News only shows coverage by a paucity of blogger and internet-only news sites 5 days on. KWH 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not going to vote at this point, because I have some sympathy with both sides of the debate, but it did seem to me that arguments to keep were largely arm-waving and those to delete founded on policy and guidelines. Perhaps Grue could favour us with a summary of the stronger pro arguments as he sees them? In the end it's not process which counts but policy (and to a slightly lesser extent, guidelines). Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. AfD is not a vote, verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of being an encyclopaedia and trumps empty hand-waving. This article failed WP:V miserably, with all sources being blogs or on a similar level of triviality, apart from one newspaper article which fails the 'multiple sources' part of WP:WEB. "Keep until we can get sources" arguments, which are numerous in the AfD, are very shaky at the best of times and completely invalid once the article is nominated for the second time (as this was) - at that point, it's too late, enough is enough, source or die. The rest of the keep arguments have even less grasp on what it means to be an encyclopaedia, mainly consisting of that old chestnut, "I heard of it" and "it's interesting" (which makes it a valid candidate to write about in your blog or forward to your friends, not to preserve in historical record). We should carve this discussion into stone as a perfect example of why AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that Slashdot (coverage about Eon8) has a paid editorial staff that verifies and removes stories that are documented to be false. Their fact-checking process is non-traditional in that it involves readers, however, corrections and updates are made frequently by staff members after publication.--Eloquence* 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am bound to point out that we keep The Game (game) based on a single Flemish-language source. Not that I disagree with you; if these things are so very significant it's astounding that they have not been covered even once in the mainstream press, even in the weekend sections which are a veritable cruft-o-rama these days. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good grief - the game is a lark which is not actually a game but a meme based on a dynamic of admitting frequently that you're a loser and getting as many people to admit that they're losers too? Sounds Pythonesque. A stupid game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? Bwithh 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we actually kept that.  RasputinAXP  c 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• (three edit conflicts later) Endorse (my own) decision, keep deleted. A quick glance would indeed show the 144 or so "votes" to keep (I tried to count but lost faith). Whilst there were a number of experienced users who believed the article should be kept, there was a far greater number of experienced users who believed the article should be deleted. Discounting the votes of sock/meat puppets and those with less than 20 edits, the significant majority of arguments were for deletion. AFD is not a vote, and so I took - as I always do when closing an AFD discussion - into account the quality of the arguments. The quality of the arguments to delete (it failed WP:WEB, WP:NOR, and possibly WP:NOT) far outweighed those to keep ('I don't know why it should be kept but it should'). But, of course, a "quick glance" wouldn't have provided any of that information. It took me a good thirty minutes to trawl through the discussion and the related links before making my decision. It all depends on whether you believe AFD to be a headcount of how many Slashdot meatpuppets can descend onto an AFD within a given 5 day period, or a reasoned discussion that takes into account of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. The argument to keep was nothing but swearing and ranting. That to delete applied policy and process. Proto///type 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Meets WP:WEB (Politiken plus very substantial Internet coverage including high traffic sites like Slashdot). We're here to argue about whether the closer followed deletion policy. The closer argued that, in spite of lack of consensus to delete, the page should be deleted because: "AfD is not a vote; arguments for deletion outweigh the (quote, unquote) 'arguments' for keeping." This is not sufficient reason to override community opinion. The closer did not point out how the page fails to meet WP:WEB at present. Note that the Politiken coverage was pointed out fairly late in the discussion, which even favored keeping the article before then.-Eloquence* 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the closer argued that, ignoring the legion of brand new and unregistered users, there was a consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

By what definition of consensus? Many long-time users, including admins, argued for keeping the article.--Eloquence* 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been semi protected for sometime so the number of total new users should be limted.Geni 15:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're here, Geni, can I ask what was the thinking behind your ignoring the AFD, and, instead of going through DRV as Grue did, unilaterally restoring the article? Proto///type 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't I just applied WP:OWN to it. Or more correctly I applied WP:OWN to your descission.Geni 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:WEB: This page gives some rough guidelines which most Misplaced Pages editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content ... should have an article on Misplaced Pages. WP:WEB is not binding policy. It is just a guideline and should not be elevated above that status. Sam Korn 15:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn — the discussion clearly indicated a complete lack of consensus, which requires that the article be kept. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we consider AFD to be a straight vote, and fail to take into account the quality of argument, that would be exactly correct. I'm pretty sure we don't do that. Or, at least, we shouldn't. Proto///type 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I, for one, believe that the methodology behind your decision was correct and applaud you for making it. It's a bad thing when fans of a particular cruft can flock to a xFD debate, flood the vote with keeps as de facto sock puppets, and then an administrator just counts heads. However, though I agree with your methodology, the incident seems to meet WP:MEME and, thus, I don't agree with your analysis. BigDT 15:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks BigDT. I did note both WP:MEME - which it may have just passed - and WP:WEB - which it failed. But those are both guidelines (and WP:MEME is a proposed guideline), not policies. WP:V is a policy, and so bears a lot more weight, as does WP:NOR. Proto///type 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD is first and foremost about implementing community consensus through deletion decisions. Admins, historically, have a janitorial role, not an editorial one. They push buttons that we cannot make available to anyone for security reasons. The primary responsibilities of the closing admins are therefore technical: verify whether, discounting sock puppets, there is still substantial lack of consensus for deletion. This is the case. You are arguing you have a right to override community opinion, because the page is "against policy". However, WP:WEB is a fairly recent policy, unlike, say, NPOV or our copyright policy. These core policies are non-negotiable and closing admins have a responsibility to enforce them. More specific content policies are flexible, and it is not up to a single admin, but to the community at large, to develop such highly specific policies through process and precedent. It is clear from the precedent that the community feels that the page either meets WP:WEB, or that WP:WEB should be expanded to be slightly more inclusive of phenomena receiving broad web-based coverage.--Eloquence* 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB is a wikt:guideline, not a wikt:policy. I do not have the right to override community opinion. I have the 'right' as the closing admin, to take into account the validity of the arguments. If there are 20 'keep this because it is good', then I would go with the one 'delete because it fails WP:V', with evidence provided, every single time. And I would remain unrepentant. Proto///type 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proto, you decided to delete a page in spite of a clear lack of consensus to do so with a quick comment that some arguments are better than others. Now you are, for the first time, bringing up WP:V as a justification. Fine, we can continue to discuss whether the article content was verifiable. However, for the next time, when making a bold move like this, please carefully document under which principle and based on which evidence you do so. As it stands, this deletion needs to be overturned on grounds of process alone. As for the argument about verifiability: Are you suggesting that the experiment never took place, that the website never existed, and that all coverage about it is the result of a well-orchestrated campaign to plant false information in blogs and wikis? Surely not. I will agree that the article attracted a large amount of original research, which was carefully vetted by experienced editors later in the process. However, the core facts can be easily verified -- through the published reliable sources, and the large amount of decentralized coverage.--Eloquence* 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please carefully document the reason for your decision, with at least twenty-seven eight by ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining the evidence... KWH 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn/Undelete - It certainly seems notable as a meme and has an article on Wikinews. BigDT 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Closing admin made a careful judgement call. I don't see this subject meeting WP:WEB or WP:MEME. Bwithh 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Both WP:WEB and WP:MEME are guidelines to be interpreted by the community. In any case, one can interpret WP:WEB so that it applies. Proto argues that WP:V is violated, but he did not make that argument when closing the deletion.--Eloquence* 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. A bold decision to overturn a substantial numerical majority that based their opinion on little or no reasoning. This is exactly how AfD should work, exactly why AfD is no longer called VfD, and exactly why the decision of Proto should be defended. Batmanand | Talk 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not how AfD is supposed to work. It is a consensus-based process. If there is no consensus to delete (and I mantain there wasn't), the article is not deleted. The "quality" of the arguments matters only in close cases. The opinion of one editor (the closing admin, in this case) should have the minimal influence on the result of the discussion.  Grue  15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree AfD is about consensus, it is also about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If an article falls foul of them, unless people can give good reasons for it not to be deleted, it most certainly should be deleted. For example, and I quote from the {{AFDAnons}} template, "The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion". Batmanand | Talk 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Samuel Blanning. KillerChihuahua 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, AFD was properly conducted and the closure was well within the admin's discretion... in fact, he is to be congratulated for noting the arguments made and not simply headcounting. It wasn't exactly a subtle or complicated decision -- there was simply nothing to justify an article. The keep votes are hopeless hand-waving. The most anyone could some up with was a day's traffic spike after having been submitted and accepted to Slashdot -- before that the Alexa ranking was hopeless (so much for the claims about widespread paranoia). As for Slashdot being fact-checked... there speaks someone slightly desperately looking for an case to make. - Motor (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I won't comment on the merits of the actual article, which I've never looked at. It might have verifiability issues, it might be better off redirected to YTMND or Internet phenomenon or some article like that and just briefly mentioned there, who knows. But just looking at the discussions themselves of whether to delete the article, I find the way they were handled on closing seriously inadequate. For the first nomination, which looks like borderline-acceptable support for deletion at best, the closing admin provided no explanation for how they reached that conclusion. It shouldn't be surprising that this didn't hold. For the second nomination, we get a conclusory explanation that the arguments to delete outweigh the "arguments" to keep. Fails to explain why this conclusion was reached, and the scare quotes seem to try to dismiss one side of the argument without actually dealing with it. Above, Proto elaborates a bit: "The argument to keep was nothing but swearing and ranting. That to delete applied policy and process." You can find swearing and ranting no doubt (on both sides), but as a generalization this is such a ludicrous description that I have to conclude Proto was simply disregarding the outcome of the discussion and substituting his personal opinion for that of the community. That's not acceptable. --Michael Snow 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  Do you think it is immaterial that a large number of the keep voters in the orignal discussion are very inexperienced with Misplaced Pages, some with zero article edits? --Gmaxwell 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do, everybody has to start from 0. Maybe this article interested many people, who then wanted to defend the information and registered? Lapinmies 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. "zomg blogosphere" and one mention in an obscure newspaper do not make it verifiable from reliable sources.  RasputinAXP  c 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Per Thatcher131's observation in the orignal discussion that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself". --Gmaxwell 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, per Michael Snow. Deletion is simply not necessary. Tiamut 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  Greetings, Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I'm curious as to what aspects of your under 100 article edits have best prepared you to help us decide where deletion is needed on Misplaced Pages? --Gmaxwell 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  It was pointed out to me that my comment could be interpreted as intending to insult. That was not my intention, I welcome all newcomers. However, experience does have value, so It is my view not unfair to give greater weight to the views of the experienced, especially when considering votes rather than arguments. It appears likely to me that a substantial position of the previous participants were meatpuppets or at least wholly inexperienced with Misplaced Pages, which works against the argument that the deletion decision was against the will of the community. I don't want to see that confusion continue. If Tiamut has been editing anonymously for a while, I welcome him pointing that out. Sorry for any insult or confusion. --Gmaxwell 17:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per above. Naconkantari 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Per above also in my option if we overturn this decision this article could quickly turn into another GNAA which has been to AfD 18 times now. I don't really want to see AfD clogged up all that much. BJK 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The site has been featured on many popular sites and at least one newspaper has written about it, this is one of the more notable internet fads/memes of 2006 and few wikipedia articles have as much references. Lapinmies 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dunno I voted delete, but the Danish source makes me undecided now on if I would still vote delete. Ignoring the "votes" from anyone's name I don't recognize, I do not see consensus to delete. WP:WEB does not have enough force to warrant deletion for not meeting it ipso facto. My concerns about verifiability are somewhat allayed by the Politiken mention, so I do not think "WP:V trumps all" can really apply. I don't buy Eloquence's argument in regards to Slashdot. Misplaced Pages had paid editorial staff (LMS) and it has a community that actively fact-checks and posts corrections, can we cite Misplaced Pages in Misplaced Pages? Slashdot often posts rumors, speculation, and things that are plain wrong. Coming back two days later and saying "we fucked up" doesn't really fix that. There is also the thing like the christmas lights where they are duped completely. Who can forget that gibberish about Steve Mallett ripping off Digg and being a spammer? How about blogging being banned and "'toothing"? I don't believe in The Wisdom of Crowds, seems more like ignorance of the masses. In my opinion, that rules out slashdot and joystiq, which all they are doing is parroting what the site says (which archive.org does well enough) or parroting what people on forums are saying (we can link to forums too). Basically we have two sources, the website itself and it's operator and the Danish article, which afaik mostly an interview.

Should we include articles that can be sourced weakly enough that they do not blatantly fail our content policies, just because they are popular? Articles with much better sourcing regularly die on AFD than this or The Game (game). If we want to be a real, reliable source of information we should require more than "well, it is borderline".

Can an AFD be closed based on the weight of arguments instead of numbers? The answer is obviously yes, in some cases. I don't think anyone really cares that 'votes' from (sock|meat)puppets and new users are regularly ignored. If 20 people vote keep, but one person points out it is a copyright violation, can it be deleted? If 20 people vote delete because of lack of sources, and one person finds mentions in the NYTimes and Washington Post, can it be kept? I say yes. While this closure is not as clear-cut as these other cases, I do not see it as being egregiously out of line. If they cannot, we should get rid of "NOT a democracy" and move AFD back to VFD. Thus, I do not think arguing this on procedural grounds has much merit.

In summary, deletion policy does not say that articles may only be deleted upon consensus, but rough consensus. This closure is completely within that spirit and letter. While you can argue that his decision was wrong, you cannot say that it was not permitted. We should encourage more admins to close in this fashion, and maybe we will actually have a decision on The Game (game), Gay Nigger Association of America, Slashdot subculture and Slashdot trolling that makes sense for an encyclopedia. (after an edit conflicts) Kotepho 18:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What Really Happened

Courtesy posting. "Endorse, keep deleted". — Jul. 5, '06 <freak|talk>

Qué? Until someone actually wants it overturned, what's the point in discussing it? --Sam Blanning 13:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've received complaints. I chose not to respond to them. Treat this as any other deletion review. — Jul. 5, '06 <freak|talk>

Overturn Notability under WP:WEB was arguably established, though it is true that there was no strong consensus. No rationale was given for the decision to delete, nor has any been provided since the decision was taken, and no review of the arguments was made, which would have been desirable considering the volume and variety of postings. Tiamut 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC) A count of the votes by registered users, excluding those who were brand spanking new shows 30 for deletion and 23 against. We should not be penalized for the misdeeds of others.Tiamut 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion or re-run the debate with the AfD semiprotected. I have rarely seen so many brand new and unregistered voters in an AfD. There is a very real danger that any bit of webcruft canb be kept these days solely by posting a "save our article!" link, which is not necessarily what happened here but it sure looks that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete. I really like, by the way, User:JzG's idea of running the AFD semiprotected. I was just about to type that. I don't know that it's ever been done before, but maybe it should be in cases like this. At any rate, I think the thing to keep in mind with sites like this is that having a Misplaced Pages article is not an endorsement of the content. I looked at the site ... I don't know why anyone in their right mind would go there ... but the fact is, people do go there. Even ignoring the socks, it looked to me like a no consensus keep, but with so much noise in there, it's hard to tell anything from either AFD. Thus undelete, but I really think it would be a good idea to have a calmer AFD on the subject. BigDT 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete The Web Site is non notable blog or new Aggregator. It may have been mentioned by the Tornato new paper, but that is not a reason to keep this. Leave it deleted. Aeon 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Frankly, the sheer amount of vote-stacking and sockpuppetry on this site's two AfDs was despicable. Freakofnurture got it right when he was able to see past all of that. --Cyde↔Weys 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I didn't go back and count every single opinion but it certainly appeared that if you limited this to registered users with a pre-existing edit history, the consensus leaned delete. I don't think it was every completely established that this site met WP:WEB, though Tiamut did make an argument to that effect (and I meant to thank him/her for actually arguing the merits of the article based on the exisiting guidelines).--Isotope23 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, holy sock and meat-puppets, Batman. Proper application of admin's discretion to discount all the invalid votes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, process was followed. I wish more closing admins would ignore vote stacking and sockpuppetry. Proto///type 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete - it seems like in some of these scenarios it's fatuous to hope for a perfect and non-controversial process, especially when the site itself posts a front page link to the AfD. The one-time oblique mention of the URL by a media-critic columnist in the Toronto Star is exactly what WP:WEB excludes as evidence of notability ("Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, … a brief summary of the nature of the content …"). (Though, as noted by Isotope23, thank you to Tiamut for sticking to substance and research with regards to that.) Not to mention the extended overwrought essays alleging overt censorship, crimes against humanity, etc. KWH 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Process was followed correctly despite vote-stacking and meat-puppetry. Freakofnurture should be commended for exemplary work in a difficult and contentious situation. --Doc Tropics 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Cyde, Doc Tropics. KillerChihuahua 16:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Cyde. Naconkantari 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image_talk:Canada_flag_large.png

I'd like to have this talk page unearthed, as it may contain important discussion of the legal use of the Flag of Canada on wikimedia projects. It is referenced by Image:Flag of Canada.svg, and the other reference is a canadian government website which implies the flag is non-commerical use only. Such would be bad for the fact that the flag is used in a lot of places, including user pages. For this, I think the content here is worthy of being undeleted and archived somewhere if it contains such discussions. Kevin_b_er 06:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's just some discussion about the proper share of red to use and talk about protecting the image to avoid vandalism as far as I can see... --Sherool (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we should unearth it

• Restore or copy/paste to userspace - there is no point in having a talk page hanging around with no page to go with it, but you can ask any administrator to restore it or copy/paste it to your user space. If you find it useful, you can reference it or copy/paste it to the new talk page. BigDT 13:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete somewhere (probably userspace, per BigDT), the talk page did include some useful information for reference purposes, so I don't see too much harm in undeleting this. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States musicians

Articles: List of bands from Wisconsin and List of Wisconsin musicians

But that's only part of it. The main object of the deletion was List of United States Musicians, and you can see the discussion here. That list was comprised of lists of List of STATE musicians and List of bands from STATE. So that list linked to about a hundred lists. All of those lists were deleted as well. I watched the Wisconsin lists closely, and I never saw a tag proposing a deletion on either of them. Additionally, the main reason given to delete them (redundancy) was untrue (but I guess that's beside the point?). Bottom line: useful information was lost, due in part to lack of procedure. I don't know if any other states's lists were deleted with the same problem, nor do I know if anybody cares, but I want Wisconsin's back until they can be replaced with categories. -Freekee 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards keep deleted. With a unanimous consensus to delete, the only question seems to be that of procedure - whether the fact that AfD tags weren't added to all the articles in a group nomination compromised the process. I don't think it did. Expecting the nominator to add tags to over a hundred articles is not reasonable IMO, nor is having the closing admin remove them all afterwards if the discussion had resulted in keep/no consensus. AfDs are centralised discussions, and the addition to the daily log is more important than the tag on the article. If you want to see the list so you can work through it and add categories to all the entries, I can restore it to your userspace. --Sam Blanning 08:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've notified Sango123 for closing the above AfD and Kimchi.sg for deleting "List of bands from Wisconsin" and "List of Wisconsin musicians". --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore due to procedural problems Abstain on deletion issue but ask for considering changing procedure. I too, was watching the "List of Wisconsin musicians" article, and I did not notice an AFD tag. I don't think its fair to delete a large number of articles without giving interested parties such as Freekee and myself a fighting chance to learn of the AFD vote. You can't expect everyone to watch AFD every day to learn about every proposed deletion. I spent hours looking through the July 2 AFD nominations yesterday. You can't expect everyone to spend hours every day to watch AFD. That's what the AFD tag is for. I think that the AFD tag needs to be applyed to any and all AFD articles to avoid this situation. Even when its around 100 articles. Maybe a bot could do the task in a case like this. I just got a AWB, so I have limited understanding about how they work.
  

Also, the deletor did not clean up all the red links that was created by this deletion. There are 19 articles linking to the "List of bands from Wisconsin". That's an open invitation for someone to create another article, defeating the purpose of the deletion. Sloppy. Royalbroil 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As an alternative to adding and possibly removing 100 AfD tags, how about relisting and posting a notice of the AfD on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard? --Sam Blanning 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have found it that way. I am only aware with the articles in question thorough WikiProject Wisconsin. Royalbroil 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore and relist (all the per state lists, not just the two mentioned above) - it's enforced policy at WP:CFD to tag every category that might be deleted in response to aggregate category deletions. Articles should have protection that is at least as strong. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says the warning should be placed on the article, with no exception mentioned for list articles that have a "parent" list article. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore and relist - with proper notification on all the sub-lists. I also would prefer that if these lists were to be replaced by categories, that such categories be created/populated before the deletion, which does not appear to be the case. Arguments based on categorification are only valid, IMO, if such has actually been done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)