| Revision as of 17:03, 3 November 2006 editNakon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers63,562 edits →[]: endorse← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:49, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,053 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (69 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===2 November 2006=== |
|
===2 November 2006=== |
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly feel that the Brody Ruckus page should be unprotected and restored - the Facebook group was an important marketing technique and social phenomenon that involved over 300,000 people and has been covered by major student newspapers - http://www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2006/11/03/News/threesome.Facebook.Group.Allegedly.A.Scam-2437716.shtml?norewrite200611030613&sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&mkey=1491036 |
|
|
|
|
|
How can Misplaced Pages cover incredibly obscure topics but ignore one that involved so many people? |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', don't see anything that's changed since , except the one student newspaper report which does not meet the "multiple non-trivial published works" criterion of ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''', per previous DRV. ] 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Wow i cannot believe this got deleted. I play Teeterdil all the time '''STRONG OVERTURN!''' This is legit mang. ] 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:AFD: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Amazing how, with its immense popularity, it has thus far managed to elude the all-encompassing gaze of Google. There are precisely two hits: Misplaced Pages and the creators' MySpace. Contributors include {{user|Teeterman}} and {{user|Teeterdilforlife}} '''Endorse deletion''' of this ] unless and until we have proper sources. <b>]</b> 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''', valid AFD. ] 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
I created an article on the actor Dustin Varpness. The initial article was not submitted until I had referenced several outside sources including the IMDB. Another user added a STUB category while I continued to work on completing the article. I found the article was speedy deleted shortly after its creation. The reason for this was cited to me as ] but that decision was based on an assumption. The admin saw my username and believed me to be the subject of the article but I am actually a relative of Dustin. My name is Matthew Varpness and I decided to contribute the article on Dustin based on his appearance in several television shows on the Discovery Channel and the Disney Channel. In addition, I believe the article is beneficial because there are folks who wish to find out more about Dustin's career. I should know, I am the admin for Varpness.com and have received numerous emails from girls who saw Dustin on the Disney Channel and want me to forward their letters to him. In addition, I host some photos and information on his Discovery Channel program and have the internet search word referrals showing people visting my website based on their search for more information on him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, I realize I can be long-worded so I'll post this undeletion request with a reminder that the reason for deletion was based on an incorrect assumtion and I'd like to have access to the source for the article so I can complete my contribution to Misplaced Pages. Thank you. |
|
|
--] 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. From the article: '''''Dustin Varpness''' is a young actor who has contributed his talents to one Discovery Channel Program and at least one Disney Channel commercial.'' Sorry, I'm afraid we expect a bit more than that. We also don't much like articles written by members of the subject's family, because it's so hard to be properly ]. Wait until he's in the next Spielberg movie, perhaps. <b>]</b> 09:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
There was an article created by a dedicated forum, http://en.wikipedia.org/Mobile_weapon , which gave very good information, context and content, about the free online game Mobile Weapon. It was not copyright infringing, as the creators of the game gave their permission, and it was not advertisement, as it only described the game and its series. The reason sited for its deletion was, "Site comes up when searching for Gundam," or something like that. However, we had a tag up at the top that said that if they were searching for Gundam, they should just click on the link provided, and be redirected. That deletion request was removed, but it was still deleted later on. Many members of the forum asked for its restoral. No one knows the exact date it was deleted, but it was in the last week or so. I had created one about this topic about a month ago, but it didn't have much on there, and was deleted. However, this topic was full of information, well made, and had no reason to delete it. If people want to search for Gundam, they should type "Gundam," not "Mobile Weapon." Could someone please restore this? {{unsigned|N00b Master}} |
|
|
*The article was deleted per ]. This was a valid AfD with a clear consensus, so I '''endorse''' the decision of the deleting admin. If you address the issue raised during the discussion, the lack of assertion of notability, you are free to recreate the article. But I'm not sure this game passes ]. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse''' valid deletion debate and closure. The number of genuinely notable flash games is vanishingly small. <b>]</b> 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This article was just created today and was undergoing edititing to reinforce its position in Misplaced Pages because of a previous hoax article by the same title. From memory (correct me if I'm wrong) the reason behind deletion was due to numerous editing in a small time period. Once again I would like to say that this was the article's first day in existence and needed this editing. It also needed editing due to the limited amount of information available on the subject. During the second half of today editing constantly reoccurred as I found new information. Another Misplaced Pages user was helpful enough to add to the information, so how can two people be wrong on such a topic? Everything in this article was fact and justified. It was also cohesive and did not have anything that even hinted to the article being a hoax. I would appreciate it if my hard work and Percy Norton were acknowledged by the speedy un-deletion of this article. Please allow this article to grow and develop and I can promise that I personally will keep it from factual corruption. |
|
|
Yours sincerely, ] 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion and protection'''. The only thing that came close to an assertion of notability in the article were unreferenced and unverifiable ]. Also, Enknowed contradicts the article in this request. He speaks of "the limited amount of information available on the subject", while the article says that Norton "has won his place in his nation's ... heart." The lyrics to "his Classic Folk Song" don't return a single google hit. Neither do the critics mentioned in this article. The two users who worked on the latest incarnation of this article were ] {{user|Enknowed}} and {{user|Silentbob4477}}. And the best part of this article? Percy Nobby Norton is a "19th century Australian folk artist" who "has devoted his time to re-developing his music career." Could we please add him to ]? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You should create the article in your own subpage (for example) ], work on it there until it is complete and can stand scrutiny and not look like a hoax, and post it as an article. The whole point of the speedy deletion process is to delete articles speedily and not leave them lying around hoping that they will get better. --] 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion and keep protected''' This has surfaced before. Each occurrence has included nonsense claims, totally unverifiable, as well as less than pleasant behavior by some of the article editor(s?), as evidenced in ]. Way too much time has already been wasted on this one. -- ] 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion and protection''' Deleting it had nothing to do with "numerous editing in a small time period" and everything to do with being a painfully obvious hoax. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Speedy close''' per above reasoning. More than enough time has been wasted on this nonsense. <b>]</b> 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Overturn''' Shame on your close-minded power freaks. I have said it over and over, this is '''legitimate''' and I wouldn't waste my time if it wasn't. Why bother trying to pass a hoax under the up-turned noses of the Misplaced Pages elite? Hoaxes and genuine articles on unsung heroes are quickly and speedily deleted by the Wiki-admin. Show a compassion and humanity by allowing the Misplaced Pages users to expand your closed minds. This article shows promise and was sound from the word go when it was created on the 2nd. ] 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*All articles must be ] from ]. If we can't verify it, we have no way of knowing what's legitimate. These rules are not optional. They're at the core of Misplaced Pages standards. ] 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== ] ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Article seems to have been hastily A7'd on October 20th. I'm not sure if it was vandalized and stripped down to a single sentence or something first, but in its original form, it asserted notability. The individual is a common guest on the Bob & Tom radio show. --] 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yeah, that's what happened -- the version I speedied contained only a single sentence. I'm not sure it'd survive an AfD; but speediable, she ain't. Since I was the admin who screwed up, I'll just overturn it and call it a day. Pow - article restored. -- ] 13:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Article was deleted without due process, citing a false claim of copyvio. If the list of the 100 most powerful women per se should not be included, it could have been removed from the article. The article text was original. However, I strongly doubt it constitutes a copyright violation to include the list of the most powerful women as the Forbes Magazine see it. For the people included, the Forbes Magazine also wrote more extensive reviews. Which person who were considered most powerful has public interest. If this is copyvio, our list of Nobel Prize laureates or recepients of various other prizes are copyvios as well. ] 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' we have quite enough listcruft of our own without importing other people's. <b>]</b> 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Full disclosure - I deleted the article. It's a subjective list of people created by a copyrighted entity for their paying customers. It's Forbes magazine's intellectual property, and we have a history of deleting such items, like Guitar magazine's top 100 guitarists, etc. ]|] 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Mr. Maxwell is a highly respected researcher of the arcane and the occult, of theology and the astrological symbolism found therein (]). Among other works he is the author of |
|
|
|
|
|
Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy Symbols, Sex & the Stars That Old-Time Religion Matrix of Power |
|
|
|
|
|
and he has produced the following DVD documentaries and lectures: |
|
|
|
|
|
Ancient Religious History & The Dark Side Basic Slide Presentation Egypt in the New Millenium: Jordan Maxwell Magic Dominates the World Private Interview with Zecharia Sitchin Secret Societies and Word Meanings Signs of Destiny II Sons of God & Maverick Award Show The Bible, End Times & Prehistory |
|
|
|
|
|
On top of that he has been guest to many nationwide radio broadcasts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also there is a lot of Jordan Maxwell to be seen on Google Video |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-293722740290609247&q=jordan+maxwell |
|
|
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4063351610980261831&q=jordan+maxwell |
|
|
... |
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Overturn''' I believe this guy is real and legit. I think it should be an article. ] 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Contested prod''', restored. Future such requests can go under 'Contested prod' above. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This article has been deleted and protected. I believe it should not be protected and be put back up because it is a popular comedic website, and not an attack. Many articles on wikipedia are just like this one; they are comedic websites that happen to be about a man with tourettes. I will admit it is inappropriate and sort of mean to those with Tourettes, but i believe these type of websites should be allowed on wikipedia, it has its sources, and many people go on the site to watch the videos. There is even a petition to get it back on wikipedia. So please reconsider deleting and protecting this page. Thank you for your time. ] 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''', ] ] valid AfDs, no new evidence presented. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I have shown you my evidence, go to and look at the videos, they are used often and the website gets many hits. Please reconsider. ] 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' obvious consensus in both of the AFDs that Sam linked. If someone believes that they can write an article demonstrating notability according to ] using ], they are free to do so at a user subpage and propose that for consideration. In this case I also suggest getting feedback from the folks at ] before proposing it here. ] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Overturn''' I dont think you understand how popular this site is, many people know about it and it is humorous. C'mon ] 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Speedy keep deleted''', no new evidence, AFDs were clear. ]|] 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**You guys are smart... no new evidence? there is only one real piece of evidence! i have showed you that Tourettes Guy exists and it is prosperous. many people want this as a page and there is a petition for it. Please realize that this page is legit and needs to be on wikipedia ] 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***If there is only one real piece of evidence (the main site), then there are no ] to ] anything on it. ''The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth''. --] 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Two valid AfDs, no new information. --] 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse again'''. No new evidence since previous AfDs and DRV. <b>]</b> 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Surprisingly, as one who deleted and protected at one stage, in fact I '''support restoration''' if only to stop us having to keep discussing it. The title should be ]. The site is tasteless and politically incorrect but those are not reasons to prevent us having an article. I would compare with ] which has also been to AfD countless times but always with a "keep" or "no consensus" decision. And note the Alexa ranks: and . -- ] 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' per previous AfD, no evidence this passes WP:WEB either then or now. I doubt we'll ever have a web criterion based solely on Alexa rank (and I hope we never do, frankly), but if we did 97,000 wouldn't be even remotely close to high enough. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I agree with the man two up from me. I don't understand when you say that the site needs to be verified. It is a website, it has funny videos that are very popular. There is no reason not to have this on wikipedia. The reasons you are giving are all the same and very weak. I hope this isn't a popular vote. I hope it is based on what makes the most sense. ] 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Here is some "verification" that this is significant: As you can see it is a very important website, and many people want this as an article. Please realize that this is verifiable proof. Thank You! ] 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**You might want to have a look at ]. Internet petitions are about as far from reliable as you can get. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#F425T24">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#PP3543535301">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FU0000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***You might want to stop disrespecting me. I feel like you administrators are picking on me. This is completely legitamite and an internet petition is definetely a way to show verifiability. I have experienced wikipedia admins before, and you are showing me nothing different. Please respect me and tell me exactly why this article is insignificant. I do NOT want to hear there aren't enough sources when there are equally significant articles like ], and ]. Please know what you are saying before you speak. ] 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Well, the ] thing is a pretty dumb article, but it is sourced from a New York Times article and probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As for GNAA, I agree with you that it isn't well sourced, and there have been numerous attempts to delete it. In any case, inclusion is not an indicator of notability (as specified by ]). See also ]. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 04:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' Tourette's guy is a tactless, tasteless website, but a popular cult hit among young internet surfers. Countless times at high school I've heard people say, "Oh yeah, you saw the latest Tourette's Guy?! Man that's so awesome!" Articles like the ones on PBJ Time, YTMND, etc. are the reasons why people come to this site: to find out about anything that has gained some noteworthiness, and that's _just_ what Tourette's Guy is. --] 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Amen Big Tex! My friends and I always are talking about the Tourette's Guy, Danny. He is just so funny. I know it is somewhat mean, but definetely deserves an article. I am glad you could bring that up. I find it noteworthy, as many people do. ] 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::* ] does not trump ] and ]. <b>]</b> 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Misplaced Pages articles are not prizes. No-one "deserves" them. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endose Deletion''', valid AFD. ] 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This article was entered yesterday, and was erased by this morning. It was tagged as spam. I am not sure why it was tagged as spam. It was my first time writing for Misplaced Pages and perhaps I did something wrong. Hidden Beach is a real record label, and the information I included was not spam. I looked at the enteries for a number of other labels in order to get an idea of what to write. Like I said, I am new at this and would appreciate any guidance about why it was deleted and what I can do so that the article can be restored. You can find the article on the delete log. Thank you ] 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Endorse deletion'''. For the benefit of Rebecca, the relevant deletion criterion is ] G11: ''"Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic"''. Paragraphs like ''"Philosophically, Hidden Beach is akin to a mythical place…that actually exists; a place where innovation and originality are valued and encouraged"'' and a section written in the first-person entitled ''"What we believe"'' copied from the mean this article definitely meets that criterion. (Copying from the website also violates copyright, but that's a side issue - even if properly licensed the text is manifestly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.) There is no prejudice against an encyclopaedic article being written in its place, preferably one that uses third-party sources to demonstrate that the label meets ]. |
|
|
:I would recommend that deleting admins link to ] in their deletion summaries so that new editors can more easily find the policy 'their' article was deleted under without having to ask here. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Seconded. I try to remember to do that myself, it takes a couple of seconds only. <b>]</b> 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Endorse deletion'''. Endorse Sam but add that whilst there is no prejudice against an article there is strong prejudice against anyone from Hidden Beach writing that article - Rebecca carefully omits to declare in what way she is connected to the company. I deleted it and OK, he says wearily, perhaps it would have been better to put "<nowiki>]</nowiki>" than plain "spam". -- ] 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion''', canonical spam. Rebecca, please spend a while getting used to how we work - maybe you can help out by expanding articles on some of the performers you know (but are not associated with). Editing ] is a ] because of the inherent difficulty of remaining appropriately ]. <b>]</b> 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
November 2nd 8:28pm |
|
|
Hello. |
|
|
I have been using wiki and decided to add an article for the first time. The article I added was about a company that has made great contributions to the flash world. I did not post any products they offer, just about the company its self (example being when it was founded and by who). I am not the owner of Webzo, I am just a user who is from the flash community. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why was this article removed? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' Hmm, you claim to be "not the owner of Webzo" yet you chose Webzo as your user name and all your contributions are either to the Webzo article or promoting Webzo in other articles. Remarkable. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', ] an advertising service. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|