Misplaced Pages

UFC 157 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had considered taking to DRV shortly after the closure, but decided against it. However, the more I think about it, the more I find it hard to accept that deletion was the consensus in this discussion. If anything, the consensus was a clear keep and, with no offense meant, this closure seems very much like a supervote. I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as he had already discussed it with other editors and also indicated that he would not be offended if it was taken here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C)

• Comment All of the deleted revisions got restored at WP:REFUND and moved to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 157, which was later speedied under U1, user-requested in userspace. I'm going to ask Oskar for permission to undelete. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify — what I've asked is simply to undelete it and leave it at its current location. I wouldn't put it back in mainspace without Kww's agreement or without consensus from other people. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think anyone reviewing the AFD will agree that I have explained my close rationale in excruciating detail. I carefully weighed each argument against policy, and took over an hour dealing with this close. It was carefully considered, and well within policy.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  I appreciate the time and effort you put into your closure (I don't know if I've ever seen a more thorough close), but it still seems to me that the consensus was to keep the article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The way we deal with MMA articles on Misplaced Pages is frankly crap. Looking at the articles in {{UFC Events}}, we've got UFC 120 and UFC 148 as GA nominees, UFC 36 at AfD, UFC 140 at peer review, UFC 158 at deletion review just below, and a substantial number of them have been AfD'ed, particularly since June 2012.

  Black Kite said it well back in June in the AfDs for UFC 2, UFC 3, UFC 4 etc.: "it is clear that the relevance of this type of event to the guideline needs to be re-assessed". That re-assessment is underway at an RFC here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Event Notability. Once we actually have proper consensus-based guidelines in place about how WP:SPORTSEVENT interacts with MMA, then there will be some point in reviewing past discussions. Until then I would suggest deferring individual discussions such as this one. However, even though I feel this discussion should be deferred, I can see no consensus in the discussion that's the subject of this review. I acknowledge KWW's commendably thorough closing statement but I would suggest that it sees a policy-based consensus where none exists.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think i kind of dropped the ball on how i attempted to mediate that conversation. it never did become an actual RfC, i was attempting to redraft the guidelines as people gave their input. We got near unanimous support when the bottom fell through. i'm still willing to work on it but people expressed that they weren't happy with the format i was using (the "versions"). I still think it could possibly get through an RfC, but i don't have a good handle on doing it the right way. 66.190.16.30 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oops, didn't realize i wasn't logged in. Kevlar (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Oskar's declined my request for permission to undelete his userspace page. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse- I find it hard to argue with anything in Kww's lengthy closing rationale. This is a clear example of strength of argument outweighing strength of numbers. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Congratulations to Kww for grappling with this beast and surviving to explain his every move but along with S Marshall I have not spotted the policy-based consensus myself. Oskar says the article is incorporated in its entirely in the newly created 2013 in UFC so I hope that can be accepted and no one will begrudge UFC 157 redirecting there. Restoring the history behind the redirect would preserve attribution. Is there some way of getting to this position? Thincat (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• There was a recent discussion at WP:AN (section "Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?" of AN archive 243) precisely about this. Most people (including me, admittedly) supported the idea of redirecting pages instead of deleting them and/or freely undeleting the contents of redirects, as long as there's nothing bigtime wrong (e.g. copyvio or blatant attacks) with the content. There's nothing outright wrong with the deleted revisions (i.e. we wouldn't mind random Internet users seeing it), so there shouldn't be anything wrong with undeleting the history. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• It makes it easy for people to skate around what should be a case of WP:CSD#G4, so yes, there's a lot wrong with undeleting the history, unless you revdelete the content of the history and preserve only the editors names and edit summaries. In general, this is why it's a bad idea to undelete articles unless you are confident the editor intends to create a complete standalone article from the result. REFUND and merging are logically incompatible.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• No; we can close the AFD as "delete", redirect it to a relevant page, delete copies as G4, and protect the redirect after the first instance of someone un-redirecting it. I'm confused by your final sentence; merged content may not be deleted for copyright reasons, so REFUND and merging appear to me to be mandatory when someone wants to use the deleted content in an appropriate manner. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Or, better yet, do as I have done: move the history of UFC 157 under the target of the merged article. That way, you have both preserved the history for licensing and not changed a delete into a redirect. If someone later splits the content out, the history chain will be complete and correct.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's somewhat confusing (it makes the page history look rather odd), but in my opinion it's better than leaving it deleted when there's nothing illegal or otherwise bigtime problematic in the history. I'll close this request. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I prefer WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page over a WP:HISTMERGE. Since the combination article was created after the deletion, there is no history interleaving, and this is not a bad histmerge. Consider if there were multiple deleted event articles with overlapping histories – histmerging them together would be inappropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I reopened this. If this delete were actually overturned, we would restore the contents of UFC 157 to here and provide a pointer to its history. This kind of thing is precisely why REFUNDed material should never be permitted to be merged. It's OK to let contributors know what the list of sources for the deleted article was to aid them in building new content, but to refund the material and have another editor merge it into another article, all without DRV, basically acts to subvert the original delete without discussion. If I was a jerk, I could have speedied 2013 in UFC as an unambiguous copyright violation of the original article, but, despite all too common of opinion, I'm not a jerk.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to you reopening it, since obviously I misunderstood what you were intending. However, I'm even more confused now — what more may need to be done, and why does this need to remain open? Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am not sure what has been reopened. Is it really the case that if List of fancruft is REFUNDed to me and I incorporate the text in Barack Obama, a jerkish admin can within policy delete by G12 the latter entire article? Moreover, my reading of WP:CSD#G4 suggests that not even a newly created sectional redirect (replacing an AfD-deleted article) can be G4 deleted (but I think they sometimes are). 2013 in UFC was created after the AfD of UFC 157 had been closed (though its history is now opaque) so for most people in practical terms it was not available as a merge target to be considered. Two people suggested merges and there was somewhat broader support for a compromise between the territorial arguments of delete and keep. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• That "jerkish admin" would be on firm ground if he reverted your merge and rev-deleted all revisions in which it appeared.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• G12 is not delete an article which has some copyvio material it's "...where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. ". So they might remove unattributed merged stuff, but not delete the whole article. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and accept the above two comments. I have clearly misunderstood the remark about speedying 2013 in UFC. Thincat (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, it was this DRV that was closed and reopened! Thincat (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know this is entirely theoretical, but if a sysop used G12 to justify deleting material that originally appeared in Misplaced Pages article, then they'd be crushingly overturned at DRV on grounds of epic failure to comprehend the terms of use that are linked at the bottom of every page. It wouldn't matter that the original material had been deleted. Just saying.  :)—S Marshall T/C 14:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not true. I certainly use it for unattributed cut-and-paste problems. Pasting unattributed material is a G12, even if we are the source. In general, though, it's better to find other ways around it.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting on the rest of this DRV, but I have to say that I can't see where that usage of G12 is at all supported by policy. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Without any comment on the rest of this discussion, I agree with Jclemens that this is not a use of G12 consistent with any policy I know of. If material has been copied within Misplaced Pages without attribution then the correct course of action is to attribute it ({{copied}}) and, if appropriate, leave a message for the copying user. The inclusion or removal of such material in an article should be decided on encyclopaedic not copyright grounds. Obviously this is not necessary where the inclusion is vandalism (e.g. I have vague memories of George W. Bush's article being replaced by a copy/paste of Shrub), in which circumstances the vandalism is reverted/deleted as vandalism in the same way that the pasting of an irrelevant copyrighted external source into an article would be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's a side issue, but I'll stand by my use of G12 in such situations. Let's take a pretty standard example. Someone takes the entire contents of "Color blindness" and pastes it under the title "colour insensitivity", manually installing a redirect at "Color blindness". Screws up the history royally, on top of any naming concerns. I'll typically undo the manual redirect and delete the unattributed pasted contents with G12. G6 could apply, arguably A10 could apply, but I normally use G12 because it addresses my specific concern. I'm not deleting it because of duplication (A10), I'm deleting it because it was improperly licensed. It's quite possible to violate Misplaced Pages's copyright terms, and it's possible for our own editors to do so.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• In that scenario you should not be deleting anything. You should be reverting the undiscussed move of "colour blindness" and making "colour sensitivity" a redirect to it (or reverting to that redirect if one existed previously). If the title is not a plausible redirect (e.g. "seeing in black and white only") you should delete it per A10, which is intended for such purposes. If you are unsure you should redirect it and then send the redirect to RfD. Yes, it is possible for users to violate our copyright, but it is possible for others to fix this and per WP:ATD and other guidelines, deletion should be a last resort. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Meanwhile retaining a byte-for-byte copy lacking appropriate licensing or attribution? Putting in a new redirect after deleting the problem is an option. Deleting the target and performing the move properly is an option. Deleting the target and restoring the original article is an option. Leaving improperly licensed and unattributed material in an article history when a perfectly good and licensed copy of it exists somewhere else isn't an option. At least not a good one.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kww that deletion is the best solution to this example case. The copy should not be left unattributed in the redirect's history, and using {{Copied}} is ridiculous overkill. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is WP:ATD no longer policy? I've noticed an increasing tendency to pretend it doesn't exist.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it's policy. The issue here is that in the hypothetical, the material is already being retained. The motivation behind ATD is to preserve material, and the material is being preserved in a correctly licensed and atributed from. The other case, which started the discussion, is a case where an editor uses REFUND to unilaterally bypass an AFD discussion. In that case, the discussion has already taken place, and the material has already been deleted per that discussion. The balancing act is between maintaining licensing and not allowing editors to overrule AFDs. It's hard to find a policy compliant approach that fulfills both goals. I think we need to move this discussion somewhere else, but it's clear to me that refunded material should never be allowed to be merged, and we need to figure out how to ensure that is enforced.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How does retaining the copy improve Misplaced Pages? Is it worth the work of placing a proper {{Copied}}? You know that I disagree that WP:ATD dictates that "deletion should be a last resort" in all situations and at all costs (quoted from Thryduulf above, but I've seen it before). Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I copied the G12 discussion to the DRV talk page and responded there. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse  AfD is not a vote count.  Most of the closer's analysis is valid.  If there is material that has been merged that violates copyright/attribution policy, there is a process for dealing with that.  At Misplaced Pages, we don't need to predict the future, we can wait for it.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, when there's a numerical majority in one direction but strength of argument outweighs that, it is incumbent upon the closing admin to explain why. Kww did an admirable job of exactly that, and I think given the analysis, the close is well within discretion. This is an excellent example of why we say "AfD is not a vote." Seraphimblade 08:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Appears to comport with relevant process requirements. MBisanz 03:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn Just because Kww's argument was in-depth does not mean it was comprehensive, since he only addressed opening statements and none of the nested comments which took up over half the AfD debate. As it were, Kww's argument in the end came down to a lack of diverse coverage establishing the event as non-routine beyond USA Today and its subsidiary MMAJunkie, as a lot of the coverage focused on the two specific headliners who are separately notable for different reasons. Part of the problem with this is that numerous referenced articles establish that Liz Carmouche is specifically notable because she is in a title fight at UFC 157, as she is the first openly gay MMA fighter fighting for a world championship in addition to the first openly gay athlete in the UFC, and not because she is simply the first notable openly gay fighter, as she is not (Tonya Evinger predates her on that; also world consensus #1 female strawweight Jessica Aguilar is also openly gay but has never gotten anywhere the amount of coverage Carmouche got as there is no real world title in her weight class). Quite a bit of the coverage on Rousey also focused on the fight.Additionally, other articles establishing the non-routine notability of the event itself were cited in the AfD, which Kww makes no mention of despite saying that "other keep voters are going to have to fill that in by actually finding diverse sources". I cited articles from The International Business Times, The Orange County Register, The Daily News (Los Angeles), Queerty.com, and The Atlantic, in addition to a separate article from USA Today which hadn't been mentioned yet. None of these are routine coverage as they are either articles on the notability of the fight, or from sources whose sporting coverage is practically non-existent and thus the fact that they'd talk about it at all is notable. This was all months away from the event itself. Also, the fact that most of the event's notability was stemming from the headlining fight and not the rest of the card is not material if it still makes the event UFC 157 notable. I'm sure as the event draws closer there would be additional materials on the co-main-event at the very least. As it were, deleting the article on WP:GNG grounds was highly inappropriate when it should have been clear from a quick Google News search that it passes WP:GNG, and considering how contentious this deletion debate was I don't think it was appropriate that Kww specifically would be the one to close is as he is hardly an uninvolved editor in the ongoing MMA editing wars, but I'd still be strongly for overturning the deletion either way. Beansy (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm gonna say I really have to disagree with the weighing of comments WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTALBALL have been thrown at countless UFC articles and overruled plenty of times before by moderator decision. It's the same few editors that keep throwing those policies at UFC events relentlessly, so I believe they should hold less weight due to being proven false so many times in the past. In addition, this particular decision seems to given little to no weight to pretty much every claim in support of keeping the page, which leads me to believe there's a heavy bias or predisposition in place here. When even policy-based reasons for keeping are simply dismissed as "no weight" or "nothing new", then the same treatment should be given for reasons for deleting. Zeekfox (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Zeekfox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse "DRV is not AFD round 2". I significantly point at the fact that no significant loss has occured. Yes the nacent article was deleted, it got restored in userspace to be integrated into the 2013 in UFC article and attribution was retained. Has the section expanded enough to merit spliting out? Not yet. We're still a month and a half from the event and we still have the original concerns (Unsure if the headliners and major fighters on the ticket will be in, Not significantly covered outside the subject space, etc.). Hasteur (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit ironic for someone so involved in the AFD to endorse it for the reason that this isn't round 2, isn't it?

I'd also like to point out that, sure, my account hasn't done much outside the MMA deletion stuff. But that's because the other pages I view are often complete and not repeatedly being deleted by in a WP:WAR. There isn't useful and notable information constantly being removed from other topics I'm knowledgable about, so there was never a need for me to change things or argue policy against helpful contributions. I believe most other SPA's involved in this topic feel the same way. Zeekfox (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith and not tag your last comment as an {{spa}}, but you must agree an editor with only an hand full of edits, cropping up six months after his last main space edit (when I say last I of cause mean second of two) quoting and wiki-linking to policies and guidelines it is often very hard to look part the obvious conclusion that the account could be a sock of a blocked MMA editor. ✍ Mtking ✉ 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. You just proved my point of marking your earlier comment with a {{spa}}. If I was less mellow right now, I'd file a SPI on you because I have some suspicions about your editing style being quite similar to another player in the MMA project space. Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's a bit ironic. My comments get dismissed for being a single-purpose account and possible sock puppet (which is not true, I am simply one of many individuals dismayed at the constant struggle surrounding this particular topic), but why are editors not discredited for having a personal agenda? I've reviewed AfD history in terms of MMA pages, and the nominations are strongly targetted, not towards the events that are less notable or the pages that are poorly sourced, but instead towards the event(s) which is/are most popular at the moment. Within a week or month of UFC 157 happening, the page will most likely exist again, with few changes other than some results added. It won't be any more or less against policy than before (except for the WP:CRYSTAL part), but since it's no longer going to rile up the MMA community, it won't be AfD nominated again. I'm not sure what policy goes with this, but I do know the saying, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Why continuously AfD articles and claim they're against policy when they stop being Misplaced Pages infractions the moment they leave the spotlight? Zeekfox (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse Closing admin gave his rational, no procedural problem with it. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - I cannot recall ever seeing a more detailed and well thought out close. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• WARNING If there is any further commenting on the contributor rather than on the content than I will be extremely tempted to bring this to an early close. DRV is a venue that needs to remain collegiate and calm given the wide variations in opinion around deleted content. If this doesn't happen then we turn into another empty battlefield. Please keep it focused on the content folks. Spartaz 02:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn - Alrighty, with the contributor stuff behind us, I'd like to take a poke at the policies that backed the decision to delete the article.

• WP:N and WP:NEVENT- Unfortunately, saying that there is routine coverage of a sporting event is not a good basis to remove an article. Any publications that routinely cover football will also cover a Superbowl game. Any publications that routinely cover golf will also cover the yearly Masters Tournament. Venturing out of sports, any news station that routinely cover politics will cover a presidential election. That alone does not disprove notability- it's the lack of non-routine coverage that does. And that lack of non-routine coverage is not proven.
• WP:CRYSTAL- Only one UFC event has ever been canceled, and THAT event still has its own page due to the historic nature of its cancellation. If an event either does happen or it doesn't, and it's notable either way, how can it fail WP:CRYSTAL?
• On the keep side, "Why would you delete an article for an event that is coming up, just to have to start it all over again. How about we work on improving it." -Why is this dismissed as a bad argument with no weight? Is this not the spirit of WP:PRESERVE? Zeekfox (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

DRV is not AFD round 2. All you're doing is trying to re-try the AfD. Please read and understand the policies before trying to use selective readings to make your point Hasteur (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentIs there ever going to actually be a set of standards applied to which articles are deleted and which aren't? Events that have happened have strange arguments made against being article worthy. Events that haven't happened seem to randomly have pages or not. All the non-UFC promotions have been ignored when it would make more sense to have started by deleting/merging them. Sigh. Byuusetsu (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've previously pointed this out myself. Unfortunately, the point tends to get blown off as either a weak "other stuff exists" arguement, or attributed to being a personal attack. Again, I don't know which policy covers this, but at the end of the day, if we are trying to clean up wikipedia in good faith, why do UFC fight cards, headlined by upcoming title fights, continuously end up nominated for AfD, while Strikeforce: Cormier vs. Mir sits there without a nomination? I don't know how to word it or what policy to link or what suggestion to give, but I don't think it's right that these "fails notability/crystal ball" nominations should be used against solely against the pages that contain the most notable events while things that should be cleaned up are dismissed because it wouldn't start any drama if they were gone. Zeekfox (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request restoration of article twice deleted by editor/adminstrator Nyttend. Article was deleted on Sept 28 with edit summary "deleted page Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content). IMO, that was invalid, the Speedy deletion of "No content" was not justified. I requested copy to my userspace, subsequently developed it further and restored it to mainspace. Second it was deleted a month later, on Oct 28, with edit summary "deleted page Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)", and Nyttend subsequently refused to even share a copy of the deleted page.

The first deletion was discussed 28 September 2012 at Nyttend's Talk page (halfway down within archived section User talk:Nyttend/Archive 24#Hobart Welded Steel House Co. articles and other Ohio NRHP articles). He had deleted this plus 3 covered bridge articles, all Ohio NRHP articles. I believed then and now that all 4 deletions were invalid. However I discussed them pleasantly IMHO, obtained Nyttend's restoration of them to userspace, and I edited all four further before restoring to mainspace. It was an accomodation to Nyttend that I developed them further using a source that he seems to like. I also edited mention of that source into general resource wp:NRHPhelpOH. I was trying to be nice.

The second deletion was discussed in now-archived User talk:Nyttend/Archive 25#please provide copy of page you just deleted. The reader must "unhide" section hidden and labelled as "Copyright infringement is illegal, and attempting to convince me otherwise is unwelcome." and must unhide section hidden and labelled as "TLDR". Please, Nyttend and others, read those. In these sections two editors, Cbl62 and Mercy11, disagree with Nyttend and ask him to restore the article. Reference was made to a previous discussion at Talk:C. Ferris White, where Nyttend had unusual views on copyright, and editors Moonriddengirl and Dirtlawyer1 commented. I tried to be nice and explain further how I was seeking some compromise with Nyttend accomodating to his concern about quality of articles in his domain of Ohio and Indiana, and I suggested i would drop it for a while until a deletion review would be necessary. It was ended, i guess, by Nyttend closing it up with "too long didn't read" summary.

This is related to similar DRV, non-yet-closed, at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29#House at 1022 West Main Street, where 7 editors have so far called for Overturn of Nyttend's similar deletion of other Ohio/Indiana articles/redirects created by me.

This DRV, anyhow, to discuss restoration of this article, please. (Side question on process: is it appropriate to copy the deleted text to here? I don't see how this DRV process works if all cannot see the deleted item.) doncram 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse. A substantial amount of Doncram's text was a nonfree quote being used gratuitously; it easily could have been rephrased, so it was an unfair use of nonfree material, and thus a copyvio. In response to the complaints about TLRD — note that most of this section is unrelated to the question of this article being a copyvio. Finally, remember that nonfree material is not permitted outside of mainspace, so the page may not be copied here. You can find the quote in question at this page in the bottom of the "Old Bartlett and Goble Store" section; the rest was The Old Union School, located off of OH 314 in Chesterville, Ohio, was built in 1860, and has since been converted into a private residence. It includes Greek Revival architecture. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. According to the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary, "." It has overall architecture that is Greek Revival, but Italianate detailing around its windows. The school is one of several academic buildings that once existed; earlier ones have been lost. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Struck per my comment below. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend, I am unspeakably angry at you so I am biting my lip hard. Undelete the obviously no G12 page now while I work on an interaction ban proposal. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I wrote something, Ryan came and left his comment, and then I editconflicted with him while expanding my comment. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse The G12 was fairly accurate -- if you take out the direct quotes and the too-close paraphrasing, there's very little left. However, trout Nyttend for the original A3. Didn't even come close to applying.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I undeleted it later and moved it to mainspace userspace, since I realised that I shouldn't have deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, are you stating that you undeleted a previous version of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) and moved it to the mainspace? Ryan Vesey 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chronology: (1) Doncram creates substub. (2) I delete it under A3. (3) I realise that I shouldn't have deleted it under A3. (4) I undelete it. (5) I move it to Doncram's userspace. (6) Doncram expands the userspace page. (7) Doncram moves it back to mainspace. (8) I delete it under G12 for the aforementioned reasons. "...moved it to mainspace" was a mistake; I meant to say "moved it to userspace". Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn and take article to AfD. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Partially copied from my talk page WP:CSD#G12 allows speedy deletion of "unambiguous copyright infringement". The definition of unambiguous is that it is not open to more than one interpretation. Cbl62 did not believe it was a G12, which means it was most definitely not unambiguous. The instructions for the speedy deletion criteria I linked clearly say that you should have used {{copyvio}}. Removing only the infringing material was certainly an option. Being unable to see the stub, but based on your comments at the DRV, there appears to be enough free material that G12 didn't apply. Sarek of Vulcan contradicts himself when he says the A3 didn't apply but the G12 "was fairly accurate". If the A3 didn't apply, at an absolute minimum the article should have been restored to that point. WP:CSD#G12 requires that earlier versions without infringement are maintained. Refusing to correct this error is the behavior I expect from Nyttend, but not the behavior I expect from an administrator. Ryan Vesey 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• All that DRV could theoretically do here is make a finding of fact: Did all revisions of the article contain an unambiguous copyvio? If the answer is yes, then DRV will endorse Nyttend's most recent deletion. If no, then DRV will overturn it. In neither case is there anything to prevent a non-violating version of this article from being created; alternatively permission to use the copyrighted material could be granted via the OTRS system. I see that this title is not salted, and I would remark that DRV is not in a position to help with any conduct issues or animosity between users.

  It is, however, impossible to make the necessary finding of fact because the contested material has been deleted and DRV's rules prevent it from being restored. I don't think this is very fair on doncram, but it is how it is.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I just said at Ryan Vesey's talk (several minutes after his last comment, but without knowing about it), I can undelete the pre-quote revisions and move them back to Doncram's userspace. According to the final comment in the "Doncram creating unacceptable articles in mainspace again" section of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, the blocking admin here says that a major reason for the block in question was that he was repeatedly transferring the contents of another database to Misplaced Pages, and that's all that remains of this page aside from the quote; it wouldn't be helpful to undelete a page and leave it in mainspace when that page is seen as being disruptive. I'll happily do that, and now I realise that you're right in saying that this page shouldn't have been deleted. Please don't undelete it; I'll take care of it once others give input. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's helpful. Partially restore per Nyttend.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Nyttend's proposal. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you Nyttend. I apologize for losing my cool earlier. This is acceptable. You may note that I left a query on Doncram's talk page that I think will help these issues going forward. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Nyttend shouldn't have deleted this article, but taking it to AfD wouldn't resolve the situation. The deleted article was a P-O-S, containing very little meaningful content (other than the copyvio sentence) and some bad excuses for reference citations (e.g., "another book preview snippet available in Google search results"). Converting it into a halfway-decent policy-compliant stub (using non-copyvio words and citing actual references) should have taken the article creator no more than 5 minutes, but it appears from the article history that he was doing anything but that (in order to spite Nyttend, perhaps?). If this goes to AfD, I predict that: (1) the AfD discussion will be lengthy and contentious, (2) the article will survive because somebody will go to the trouble to fix the problems with the dern thing, (3) Doncram will declare victory, (4) Nyttend will be castigated for being petty for having deleted the article in the first place, and (5) anyone who points out that the true root cause is the creation of scores of similar petty sub-stubs (I have a collection from 2011, most of which still are awaiting repairs) -- and defiant refusal to acknowledge the problems with them -- will be similarly castigated. If Nyttend were a saint, he wouldn't have deleted the article. Too bad, but apparently he isn't a saint (none of us is) and I bet he made a similar prediction of what would happen if he went to AfD with this thing. --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Keymon Ache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This show is notable after the release of movie in theatres:

http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k12/nov/nov62.php
http://www.exchange4media.com/48689_nick%E2%80%99s-keymon-ache-to-make-its-movie-debut.html
http://www.tellychakkar.com/releases/keymon-ache-release-70mm

Please decide. Thank you Forgot to put name 10:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. That discussion could not have been closed any other way, given that it was unanimous. As for the sources above, they are not sufficient alone to determine notability as they are all essentially reprints of the same copy and therefore count only as a single source. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Remember that deletion at AFD doesn't condemn the article to enternal nonexistence. You may write a new article about it if you can demonstrate its notability. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse but allow re-creation. AFD was unanimous and I'm not of the opinion that simply being shown in theatres is an automatic guarantee of notability (I don't know how it works in India, but in the US most theatres can be rented for a smallish fee and you can show pretty much anything you want in them, such as a business presentation). That said, though, this appears to be a cartoon that's lasted more than one season on a fairly major network in a very major country. That sounds solidly notable to me and re-creation with reliable sources should be fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am recreating the article per Starblind. Thanks! Forgot to put name 10:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Close Now that the article has been recreated there isn't anything else for DRV to do. It looks like things have changed enough since the AfD (theatrical release, sources listed above) that a deletion as a re-creation isn't warranted. That said, while I would normally expect a show on Nickelodean India with a movie getting limited theatrical release, to be slam-dunk 'keep' some sources that don;t read like ad copy, whether or not they are in English, would be highly desirable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)