| Revision as of 12:36, 4 December 2006 editChriscf (talk | contribs)5,611 edits →[]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:14, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators57,815 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (28 intermediate revisions by 8 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 10: |
Line 10: |
|
|
|
|
|
===29 November 2006=== |
|
===29 November 2006=== |
|
<!-- |
|
|
New entry right below here. Add a new entry by typing: |
|
|
|
|
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
|
--> |
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Jeffree Star}} — (], , ) |
|
|
Jeffree Star is a celebrity like any other. He has been on television and is releasing a record. But ignorant fools have deleted the article because he is too controversial. {{unsigned|Cooljuno411}} |
|
|
|
|
|
*Without being able to see the article, but looking at the eight previous deletions, I'd suggest that Cooljuno411 should really be considering providing ] that actually confirm the subject's notability rather than calling other editors ignorant fools and ]. Please take a look at ] and keep the guidelines in mind when making an argument about this article. '''Endorse deletion''' unless someone proves otherwise. ] <small>]</small> 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Given that some sources have turned up below that actually look relatively reasonable, I have no issue with the article being unprotected so somebody can create a sourced article. ] <small>]</small> 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Tony Fox. No process violation apparent. ] 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion yet again''' but '''unsalt''' per sources below, there is no process violation here, and ]. <s>If reliable sources attesting to notability per ] (as of ''right now'', not in some point in the future) can be presented, I might change my mind, but for now, no.</s> The histories of the previous articles should remain deleted, however (most of them were fan fluff and horribly non-neutral articles without sources). --]] 08:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' as usual. Allegations of censorship are entirely misplaced, this person is slightly famous for being slightly famous but no credible sources have yet been advanced to justify inclusion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Still no sources? Still '''endorse deletion'''. Provide sources, we might change our minds. ]|] 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. Damn crystal-ballism aside, knowing full well that this person will eventually be notable enough for an article in the not-too-distant future, I do hope that these constant DRVs don't poison the well when the time finally occurs. --] <small>]</small> 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Avoiding constant recreations of the article before that time in the future may also help. ] 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Well, if a random person comes around and sees we don't have an article on someone who a) is notable, but b) doesn't meet our standards isn't really at fault for trying to fix that. I'm just hoping those of us who have seen this DRV for the third time won't be biased against it when it comes up for the fourth. --] <small>]</small> 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****I wonder if the random person's notion of notabililty (=being worth of an encyclopedia article) is already held by them before coming here or is induced by the number of article on semi-notable borderline non-notable people we have around. Or maybe it's just "being a website" the problem: everyone can create a page on a website, why are you deleting the one I created? ] 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Contrary to popular belief, wearing women's clothing does not automatically lead to fame. Half the world's population indulges in such behaviour and the vast majority are not notable. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**:Only half? Is that all!? '''Endorse''' for the above reasons. ] <small>] </small> 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' still (again?). We keep hearing "is releasing" or "will release" a record. Come back when that's "has released" and it has significant reviews and sales. Right now still seems to be garden variety myspace "celebrity". ] 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ] 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn, list at AfD'''. Noting that this still has yet to get a full hearing at AfD, I note that Mr/Ms Star now meets whichever guideline (WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC) that s/he hasn't in the past. Note the non-trivial media stories available and and . We have been successfully fooling ourselves into thinking that he's not actually "notable" or "famous" or whatever, but now that some "mainstream" coverage is coming into play, we should give it a full hearing. --] <small>]</small> 15:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''' I still endorse the deletion, given that most of the deleted articles were fan fluff, but given those sources, I've added a note supporting unprotecting the article from recreation. --]] 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Perimeter Mall}} |
|
|
A number of malls have cropped up in deletion review recently; I get the ] principle, but one can write a mall article w/o making it a business directory. One could write an article about Perimeter Mall describing its origins as part of the Spruill farm in Dunwoody, how it became the anchor of an edge city clustered around it, the food-court shooting spree incident in the early '90s and how it dragged the center of economic gravity in Atlanta to the north -- none of which deals in boosterism or plugs of Macy's or such. I fail to see how deletion works better in this instance than starting a discussion about percieved commercialism, reaching for consensus, and giving editors a good-faith opportunity to fix the article's (perceived) flaws. |
|
|
|
|
|
To play devil's advocate, what rationale for deletion of this article -- and all articles about malls -- leaves unscathed the article about the roughly equivalent ] -- or articles about ], ] (which the article should have noted is one of the first instances of a shopping center oriented around the automobile), or, say, ] or ]? --] 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* As with the other malls I deleted as part of {{user|Dvac}}'s spamming campaign, tis was a directory entry with no evident sources other than the subject's own website. ], ], ]. Feel free to nominate any similar articles. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''"But one can write a mall article w/o making it a business directory."'' sure you can the question is, was this article more than a business directory and has anyone provided anything reasonable to suggest that it can? ''"One could write an article about Perimeter Mall describing.."'' Sure got multiple third party ] on which such an article can be based? ''"I fail to see how deletion works.."'' you can say that about any deletion we don't keep stuff waiting indefinitely for someone to make it a good article, the deletion of the article isn't stopping anyone discussing the problems and coming up with a good article, when they do they can recreate the page with that good article and at that point it may stay or someone may still wish to put it up for deletion, Malls don't have a special status which exempts them from the same treatment as any other subject on wikipedia. As for the old ] feel free to evaluate them against the required standard s (NOR, NPOV, V, RS etc. etc.) and nominate for deletion as appropriate. --] 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*The nominator is correct that Perimeter Mall is a very significant mall, along with Lennox Square, in northern Atlanta. The "dragging the center north" is absolutely not correct, but, aside from that, there ''could'' be an article on the subject. That said, it is important yet again to point out that it was ''an article'' that was deleted, not a topic. '''Endorse deletion''' with no prejudice toward an article that establishes its notability with citations to unambiguous facts. At present, we are getting malls qua malls, like roads for roads' sake, and yet malls are commercial institutions that, by themselves, merely generate income for developers and speculators. Cumberland Mall is was bypassed in Atlanta, once being significant, and Phipps Plaza became irrelevant, once being a magnet, and Gwinnett Place does huge business but followed population rather than led it. (BTW, Dunwoody was the highest income zipcode in the south ''before'' Perimeter expanded the first time, and local developing restrictions kept it small, while the junction of GA 400 near Perimeter made it a convenient stopping point.) ] 13:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | ] – withdrawn after userfication, no other opinions presented – 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|
|
:{{la|Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup| — (])|}} |
|
|
:{{la|Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup| — (])|}} |
|
|
:{{la|Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>Japan was the champion of the Asia Cup, and as mentioned in the TFD discussion, Denmark's 1992 Euro squad was kept for the same reason </s> |
|
|
] 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Original deletion discussion is ] |
|
|
'''Review request withdrawn''' ] 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I hope you don't mind, I've lumped the three seperate discussions into one, as they were all the same deletion debate. In the debate there, there was '''only''' a clearly-voiced consensus to save the Denmark template from deletion, and per the precedent set in an earlier discussion (and the consensus for this sort of thing there (]). In the debate to which this DRV refers, the only consensus to save any of the templates was for the Denmark on - as far as I know, I can't go against the ] to do what seems farier (which, to be honest, I did consider). Therefore, I '''endorse deletion'''. <strong>]]]</strong> 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Thanks for the link to the Romania squad discussion. It is enlightening. However, in most of these cases (not just the Japan articles), when the templates were deleted, information was lost from Misplaced Pages. In the case of the 2000 Euro champions, there exists a ] article where the information was already replicated; but, for these three and others, the squads may not have articles yet. I only checked the 2000 and 2004 Asia Cup, and neither of them have blue links to a squad list. Is it possible to resurrect the templates, so that the source code could be used in creating similar squad lists for the other tournaments? It would make the creation of the articles a bit easier, at least. Also, should the Denmark 1992 Euro squad be listed here, as a review (to bring consistency to the non-WorldCup squad templates, and maybe a bit of closure?) ] 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::* If you like, I'll be happy to restore the deleted templates to your user-space, so that you can create an article (or more) from their listings. I'm not sure about whether to add Denmark to the debate, but it's up to you (there was a consensus to keep that one, after all :)). Thanks <strong>]]]</strong> 19:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Please do that. I got the list of players from you/your bot's contributions log; but, the log doesn't contain position/number info, nor does it account for red-linked players. Can you put all of the Japan teams (Olympic and Confederations Cup) in my user space? There were existing pages with some of the info already for those competitions (I updated them last night), but they are missing position/number info too, and I think that may have been included in the templates. Thanks! ] 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
====Large number pools==== |
|
|
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] |
|
|
|
|
|
These were all deleted out of process and should be restored. Note that ] still exists. ] 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:''Note: list of links moved out of the section header to prevent it from further clogging up the edit summaries'' |
|
|
*As the deletor (as you should know), I'm opposed to this. But there '''was''' a discussion which reached consensus that the pools shouldn't be here (I believe it was in late 2005), and was just following that consensus. I chose not to delete the talk page because it has legitimate commentary (mostly stating the page shouldn't exist) on the creation of the pages. (It should also be noted that ] is slightly larger than the number of particles in the observable universe, and and is unlikely to be exceeded as the number of articles without inter-universal communication. I restored the ], as it might deserve a separate discussion. (What ''is'' the current edit count in Misplaced Pages, anyway?) — ] | ] 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Have a look at ], it tells you. At the moment it's over 94,000,000. I can understand the confusion though - it does look out of process before you hear about the 5-month old consensus. A link to the MfD should have been put in the deletion summary. --] 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* All of them appear to have been deleted in accordance with ] which explicitly covered ''all'' the large number pools. After discounting all the sockpuppet and suspiciously new contributions, I find no process problems with that discussion. '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). ] <small>]</small> 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure'''. Most voters' comments indicated they applied to the whole set of large-number pools. Of the many many comments I see no policies cited (other than an appeal for speedy under CSD#G5). When I've noticed these pools, I've felt they fell -- as a judgment call -- under various parts of ] / ]. Most of the judgment is whether "generically promotes involvement, no harm except pennies of server space" is enough reason to apply ]. It appears the closing admin gave low weight to "it's fun" and "it's interesting" arguments, and found no "it helps build an encyclopedia" claims, so it was reasonable to find a consensus to delete under implied ("absurd", "ridiculous", "out of hand") WWIN arguments. Closing admin should have cited policy, but had more than enough problems with vandalism and SPA votes and an early close. ] 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. "Eleventy-billion"? Give me a break. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*The answer is patently obvious. '''Restore to BJAODN'''. That's where our better nonsense goes. ] <small>] </small> 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong endorse deletion'''. Misplaced Pages pools will be held as time passes. We seem to have a policy to have pools open for the next two major milestones to come, and that is OK with me. Remember that the milestones are so huge, and so far apart, that to hold pools for more than two of them at the same time would only be needlessly complicated. Misplaced Pages is over half a decade old, and we still don't have 2 million articles. What's the use of predicting now when we would have 100 million articles, or something? ] | ] 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', as there was indeed a consensus behind them. Don't BJAODN, as it isn't part of our "better nonsense". ]]<sup>(])</sup> 04:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Quite a big number of people participated in ] and even if they had it on their watchlist, deletions don't show up in the watchlist (which they should). --] 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''', these guys were just getting out of hand and weren't really even funny, either. --] 05:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|List of Half-Life mods}} |
|
|
:{{la|List of Half-Life 2 mods}} |
|
|
:In chronological order, from newest to oldest: |
|
|
:] (delete) |
|
|
:] (delete) |
|
|
:] (keep) |
|
|
|
|
|
When debate was closed, the closer determined that the reigning majority of Keep votes were sockpuppetry, and determined to close the debate with a "Delete" stamp. Direct violation of ] and standard deletion policy. Note: 13 keeps, 9 deletes... Fair is fair. ] 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' on a quick review of the quality of arguments. Half-Life is notable, modding is notable, individual Half-Life mods are not, and this article appeared to be drawn largely from original research despite appearances otherwise. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' the AFD linked only had 14 distinct edits, so how 13 were keep is beyond me (it certainly isn't what it shows now). ] is not a suicide pact, or call to shut your eyes and hope. Misplaced Pages's goals to be a free, npov encylopedia that comes first before being "fair". --] 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Information''' For your information, ] is the ''old'' AfD discussion. There was a second one, here: ]. (Note the appended 's' because in the new AfD discussion two lists were covered.) --] 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I don't have a recent copy of the deleted article, but take , add five mods similar to the entry on this early rewrite of the article, plus a section about multiplayer stats. Also think two awards per single player mod, and a mod of the year ranking for the multiplayer mods. Then you have approximately the article which has been deleted again after I rewrote it from scratch. --] 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***So an AFD was held which endorsed the deletion, two weeks later a further AFD was held which then attempts to overturn the original deletion (not the role of afd), and now that further endorsed the deletion is being bought here for review. Unbelievable. --] 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**** The consensus of the original AfD was that the article at least needed a major rewrite. Since the list of HL2 mods survived the previous AfD, I thought it was the best cause of action to make the list of HL(1) mods similar. Is this an unbelievable mistake to make? --] 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***** We are reading the same ]? All the deletes I read effectively say this is inappropriate material for wikipedia and the deletes were a fair majority. I read the consensus as delete, not rewrite. --] 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******The concsensus was delete because the list in the current state was inacceptable (indiscriminate list / repository), not because a mod list generally doesn't have a place at Misplaced Pages. That's also what the last delete vote says: "WP:NOT a repository of external links, which this is unlike the HalfLife 2 article. Userfy if someone wants to turn it into an acceptable article rather than a directory." Also the closing admin said afterwards: "Even though there was no AfD tag on the article, the AfD is still valid, so this needs to be changed significantly before it is reposted, if it is reposted at all." --] 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn original decision''' as the Admin who deleted the article did it against the voter's choice, blaming it on "sockpuppetry," without giving any proof. Considering that the other times the page has been AFD before and was overwhelmingly kept, I doubt the motivations of the Admin for the reason that they give. ] 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Assuming good faith, I guess the admin didn't mean to accuse anyone of using multiple accounts, but was merely refering to one purpose accounts (meatpuppets). An AfD is not a vote, or at least not meant to be one. It's about giving good reasons for either action (keep or delete), and ideally coming to a consensus. There wasn't a consensus, but merely saying "I find this list useful" isn't enough. As much as I'd like to have a list of good mods with descriptions and links and a couple of images of the best mods all on one page, it looks like Misplaced Pages isn't the place for this. --] 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**The lack of good arguments probably is what the admin meant with "not one valid keep vote". He wasn't saying all keep votes were sock or meat puppets. --] 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***It doesn't stop the Esperanza crew from mass-keeping AfDs in their territory with "Keep it because I like it!" and successfully hitting a "Keep" consensus. Now is not the time to buck the system.--] 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' the reference to Esperanza is irrelevant per ] and factually incorrect as several subpages were recently deleted at MfD. ] 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', ] trumps ] and ], no reason presented to overturn whatsoever as AfD is not a vote. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment as closer''' - I apologise if the closing summary implied every 'keep' was from a sock. I didn't intend it that way - there wasn't a single valid 'keep' because a) most of them ''were'' socks, and b) none of the votes were based on policy or guideline, just variations on 'I like it, it is useful'. Also note the two deleted articles are now protected redirects to the appropriate categories, which I think is a good thing. If they're notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages, they'd have their own article anyway, and thus would be in the category. Anything else is just inviting a huge pile of external links unverifiable by anyone other than Half-Life players, who would have a vested interest in keeping all the links anyway. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**"most of them ''were'' socks" - Last time I checked I only counted two meatpuppets, maybe I missed some. I'm not feeling well today so I'm not up for checking all keep votes. Of course this won't change anything, I'm merely wondering if it's correct. --] 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and re-post AfD''' Closing admin has shown bias against so called "gamecruft" before. Also, considering the amount of "sockpuppets" the article should get a fair chance. <strong>]</strong> ]/]/]/) 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and restore all''', I don't see the justification for deleting these. Half-Life is arguably ''the'' most popular PC FPS franchise, and it is also ''the'' most often modded one. Millions of people have downloaded or played mods and a lot of the mods have gone on to become highly notable games in and of themselves ... for example, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, etc. Also, claiming that "every single" keep !vote was a sockpuppet is assuming bad faith bordering on ridiculous. I saw at least one Wikipedian I've known for almost an entire year in that discussion with a good keep reason. You're going to call that sockpuppetry? Preposterous. --] 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Did you read my comment? I said the ''majority'' of votes were sockpuppets. Majority != all. Please actually read the discussion. What I said was that no keep votes were valid. This was due to the fact that they were all variations on 'I like it', and failed to reference policy at any point. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''overturn''' this one too please per cyde weys it is the most popular with games build on modification like counterstrike and dod ] 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' per Cyde... i'm shocked we agree on something... ]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Oh c'mon Alkivar, we agree on lots of things. School deletions are probably the main area in which we disagree, actually :-P ] 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn'''. First nom for the HL2 article was almost a unanimous keep. Absolutely impossible that such a decision could turn into a "consensus delete, only sockpuppets want this article" decision. --- ] 07:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:That's a misrepresentation of what I said, I'm afraid. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse'''. {{tl|notavote}} - identify ''one'' single keep comment in ] that presents a valid and relevant point. (Hint: "interesting" and "useful" are not relevant arguments.) ] <small>] </small> 07:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**brighterorange's and RockMFR's keep comments aren't that bad. --] 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Brighterorange's comment doesn't provide any reason for keeping it, only a suggestion on how to dispose of it. RockMFR's comment is ]. QED. ] <small>] </small> 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Chris: Identify one single '''Delete''' comment in this DRV that doesn't state "because the Keeps are all invalid."--] 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****]. DRV is explicitly not a repeat of AfD. We only evaluate the closure. ] <small>] </small> 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Don't be so fixated on that one single AFD. I wasn't ever aware of it; if I was, you can rest assured I would have posted a lengthy and detailed keep reason. For now, I'm stuck having to explain why the deletion was inappropriate. But just because you don't see keep reasons elucidated in that discussion that meets your standards doesn't mean they don't exist; remember, "votes" aren't binding in perpetuity. --] 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***You can always say "I didn't, but if I had ...", but you didn't. If reasons are not put forward in the discussion, then quite clearly there's no way the closing admin would have ever been able to take them into account. So, if there's some substantial piece of information everyone was missing in that list, let's see it. Otherwise, missing reasons or otherwise, it's a perfectly valid close, which is ultimately what DRV serves to discuss. ] <small>] </small> 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' - Right now, it's a redirect to the category which is alright. But I see the benefit of having a list, I don't see how this is any less valid than ]. The only problem is that everyone wants to add their favourite or their own mod. - ]]] 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' - This had a good amount of information about the listed mods and their progress, unlike the HL1 list which was just links. Not gamecruft, actually had valuable info IMO. Unless you want to go through and give each of the listed mods their own page prior to deletion next time. Easier to simply put them all on one page. ] |
|
|
**DRV is about whether or not the admin behaved correctly (accusing them of being anti-"gamecruft" doesn't help anyone decide), or whether some huge chunk of information that may have swayed the debate was not available to the participants. Arguments about articles containing a good amount of information, or being useful, interesting, valuable, etc. are for AfD, which DRV ''explicitly is not''. ] <small>] </small> 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', wasn't going to bother, but it was a case of 'I like it' versus fundamental Misplaced Pages policy, and so I closed it as such. Many of the arguments being produced on this DRV seem to be along the same lines. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Fundamental Wikipedian policy hasn't been brought up in this DRV, and only once in the AFD as ], which in this case is inconsistent and indirect, for with that logic, all lists would have to be directed. ], while it has good foundations, is not yet a ]. It's still an ] undergoing confirmation. Denying every vote as "sockpuppetry" and "I like it" is not grounds for reaching a consensus of delete unless you can specifically prove each vote wrong. People have made "per nom" and "per above" votes before, and while I understand that ], consensus is founded based on a vote majority. An almost 3:2 majority is, in my opinion, satisfactory. Did I mention that the number of Half-Life mods available in the mainstream community are widespread? (See ]) So, yeah, maybe ''I'' like it, but OTHERS ''like'' it and Half-Life is one of the most popular games in the U.S. and perhaps the world. Is it false if millions of people like it, and these people make up a large part of the gaming community? You can fall back on fancruft, but Half-Life mods aren't fancruft if it's well known by the young and old.--] 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I think that if people are invoking ] a directory, it implicitly includes some not of ] and ], otherwise they would not be supporting its deletion. Lists are fine in context. I think it's safe to assume that were there not some hint of these two in there, ] would not have been raised. Also, we don't tend to raise such things here, because doing so turn DRV into AfD round 2. In general, Misplaced Pages couldn't care less about who likes and how many people like it. If it's been written about, it goes in. If it hasn't, it stays out. If we have to define our own criteria for inclusion on a list, then the list has to go. ] <small>] </small> 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Keeping track of the complexities of the Jack Abramoff scandal is horribly complicated, and this page provided a straightforward summary of all the various organizations involved in some way. I'm happy to provide more sourcing but disagree with the deletion. --] 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment:''' I find it completely inappropriate for the person listing an article for DRV to be the one who undeletes it. ]|] 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Let's ] a bit here, shall we? The Cunctator is not at all the kind of person given to wheel warring, and has listed the undeletion here for review as well as tagging it with {{]}}. There was not much participation in the AfD, and the reason advanced for undeletion would have been a reasonably persuasive Keep argument. So I say let The Cunctator have a go at fixing the fundamental problem and I'm sure it can be revisited in a while. Damn, I think just endorsed the retention of a list. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**It's not a personality thing, I would object no matter who did it. If somebody wants to bring up a request for undeletion to the DRV and somebody else thinks it warrants undeletion, then that somebody else should do the undeleting. ]|] 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I'm just undeleting it for the sake of review. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Or does every action have to be subject to wikilawyering and bureaucracy? --] 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Like I said, why not list it here and let somebody else undelete it? ]|] 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Honestly, I'm more than a bit confused as to what the "right" process is. We've got some people saying you shouldn't be using DRV, some people saying you can just undelete it, some people saying use DRV but don't undelete it...the reason to list it here and undelete it is so that people other than admins can see the article. Or are only admins supposed to be involved? Who makes the rules? Where are they clearly defined? --] 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****** There is an incredibly (long-winded) debate ] where rough consensus is that articles may (on a case-by-case basis) have their history restored while under review. If the adminstrator who brings it for review undeletes, puts the "delrev" template on the page, and protects it, very little harm is done. - ] 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Reopen and relist AfD'''. DRV is not (as far as I understand it) a forum to review the ''outcome'' of an AfD one disagrees with, but in this non-] case, it would have been better if there would have been more discussion in order to establish consensus for or against deletion. Only three distinct opinions were expressed, two in favor and one against deletion. ] 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**BTW, what is the right forum?? Or can an admin just reopen and relist for AfD?? --] 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*As the deleting admin, I told The Cunctator I didn't mind if he undeleted it if it was consensus amongst Abramof editors to do so, as there are other similar articles that weren't deleted... a batch AfD with wide participation would really have been most appropriate if one was going to happen at all. I don't really know that the DRV is all that necessary... it might go to AfD again but this is what happens when you don't group related articles together in the AfD, it's hard for the close to be very binding... as each one produced a different result in this case. --] 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Dekoy}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dekoy| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Overturn ] 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
This article was deleted as unnotable, however several of the rules from the Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) page ] would seem to apply here as defining the band as notable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically |
|
|
"A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" |
|
|
|
|
|
1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. |
|
|
|
|
|
The following reviews would qualify - there are others as well. |
|
|
Side-line Music Magazine, a print and web magazine |
|
|
Regen Magazine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. |
|
|
As referenced in the wikipedia entry, Dekoy debuted with their first album placing on the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, it can be noted that Dekoy is very well known in the Cincinnati Area Futurepop/Goth/Industrial scene - such as it is. Rule 7 may have bearing as well. |
|
|
*While I'm not sure if the reviews would actually qualify, if you have any sort of evidence regarding the Deutsche Alt Chart, this could be rather cut and dry. Got anything at all? --] <small>]</small> 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Retrieving the DAC report now, I should have it within the next day or so. |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Skulltag}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skulltag| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
This article was deleted out of process, with a final tally of 4 votes to keep and 5 to delete. There was no consensus to delete. ] 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Your listing of this at DRV speaks very badly of your abilties as an administrator. Your '4 votes to keep' were ALL from contributors who were SPA's. There wasn't a single rational argument presented to keep. You have relisted this on DRV simply on the strength of counting votes rather than looking at the arguments, which is completely against process itself. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Skulltag is a significant Doom source port, one of the two primary client-server ports currently available for online play and one of the most creative as far as features go. If any of the ports deserves a page, this one certainly does.--] 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' AfD is not a headcount. No sources provided by keep !voters to assert notability per ]. <tt>].]</tt> 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**] is neither policy nor an official guideline, and thus is not an adequate excuse for bypassing official policy, which requires a ] for deletion. Were the software guidelines approved by the community, I would feel otherwise on this matter. ] 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***The keep !voters didn't even bother to assert ] (which is a guideline, of which ] is but a specialised form). Where is even one independent source confirming that this is the "biggest mod" for Doom? If there are any, they are nowhere to be found; thus I'm forced to conclude this is just promotion by the mod's makers. (As a side note, every time an AfD descends into a meatpuppet fest replete with ad hominem attacks, it is a bad omen.) <tt>].]</tt> 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Well, I'll certainly agree the circumstances of the AfD were a mess. It doesn't say in the article that it is the "biggest mod" for Doom. It's not so much a mod at all, as a major multiplayer source port. The nature of the project itself makes it difficult to give reliable information. It just isn't available. I can point out that Skulltag's forums have over 2000 registered members , but exact download statistics remain elusive. As do comparative statistics between Skulltag and ZDaemon, which are the primary ports used for modern Doom deathmatch. ] 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' per Awyong. ] 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment:''' I've restored the page history to let people decide for themselves. <tt>].]</tt> 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', ] and ] (''"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it"''). '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' as the original nominator. In retrospect, I shouldn't have used ] as the main reason for deletion; however, I still stand by the non-notability of the software and the article's failure of ] and ]. The article did not assert notability, and as Awyong/Kimchi pointed out, the keep voters couldn't produce reliable sources that verified the claims to notability as a "significant" Doom source port. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I don't think it's going to be possible for a vast majority of software projects to meet the requirements that are now being suggested, and ] amounts to what I would consider an inherently elitist policy which allows mainstream media to indirectly dictate what knowledge will be available on Misplaced Pages. Some links which might suggest Skulltag's influence would include http://www.gamers.org/pub/idgames/deathmatch/skulltag/ (A list of SOME of the many mods available for the project), http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB06-117.html#win10 (US-CERT warning about a vulnerability in Skulltag), http://rome.ro/2005_12_01_archive.html (John Romero gives Skulltag partial credit for DOOM's ongoing survival), http://www.amazon.com/12803-Doom-2-Jewel-Case/dp/B00005OBQB (Amazon user recommends Skulltag for easy online play), and http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Skulltag (Urban Dictionary entry defining Skulltag). I doubt any of these fit the criteria of references, or of the impossibly high standards set by the notability criterion, however. One by one all of the DOOM source port articles are going to fall, and this sets off a giant red flag for me with respect to the future of Misplaced Pages as a free source of knowledge.--] 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete:'''Skulltag shouldn't have been deleted. Just because there were no sources that verified it as 'significant' doesn't mean it should've been deleted. Did any look at 'significant' and feel hurt in any way? NO. As you may know, Skulltag has a rivalry with the source port 'Zdaemon' and any member of their community should not be allowed to delete this article, as it would be '''very''' biased. (Megaaussie) {{unsigned|203.214.150.210}} |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', WP:V still not satisfied. There's a very good reason WP:V is in place, and it's to protect you guys. Zdaemon probably isn't going to survive an AfD in its current form and ] in any case. ] 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': I, or another editor whom I've discussed this plan with, am likely to recreate this page as a redirect to ], and create a small blurb about the specific port in a section of that article, which would direct readers to the relevant article if they wish to read further. ] 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Excellent idea. ] 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''': Its not suppose to be about how many say delete and how many say no its about the point of their arguements. It was properly deleted.--] 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**It's not strictly about the point of their arguments; administrators are not judges called upon to cast a verdict. AfD is meant as a forum for discussion, in which deletions can be made when there seems to be general agreement for it. That general agreement did not exist in this case. ] 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Actually, admins are supposed to use their judgment when closing an AfD; it's one of their duties as an admin. They're supposed to weigh arguments according to how they follow policies and guidelines. Otherwise, it would just be a simple headcount and the process would be easy to sabotage. ] 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Earlier it was said "''Just because there were no sources that verified it as 'significant' doesn't mean it should've been deleted.''" Actually, ] says exactly that - if there is no source to verify the information in an article, then by all rights it should not be in the article. If there are no sources for anything at all, then the article should not be. According to my ], the strong delete argument and its support scores 2½ points, the lack of any grounding in reality in the keep arguments means it scores 0, and the behaviour of the annoying anon editor in the debate means it qualifies for the -1 for campaigning too. Of course, strictly speaking there is no need to score, as the lack of sourcing means a delete by default. In the absence of any such information being presented in the AfD, the "delete" close was correct. ] <small>] </small> 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''STRONG Endorse deletion''' The Afd was putrid with pathetic socks/meats, and pitiful threats like "''If the Skulltag entry gets deleted, I'll resurrect it. Every. Single. Time. So don't even try it.''" Don't do a lot to suggest good faith on the part of those attempting to keep it. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Just because some idiots supported an article doesn't mean the article is without merit. I cannot believe the utter immaturity in this argument. If these kind of criteria are what is used to decide what articles can or cannot be on Misplaced Pages, it is truly in trouble. BTW I would like to see an exact explanation of what information on the article is not verifiable. I can easily verify that Skulltag exists and what it does. There are roughly 25000 hits for "Skulltag DOOM" on Google alone. You guys aren't even trying. You're just pushing a personal agenda which, if it were applied to Misplaced Pages at large and not only to software articles, would see the vast majority of its information deleted. This site had a chance to be something more than a standard print encyclopedia by allowing information others deemed unimportant. It has the capacity to tolerate this due to its theoretically unlimited size. But policies like this have destroyed that potential.--] 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Oh , there's no possible way I'm letting that statement stand. First, dismissing someone else's arguments as 'immature' when you don't like them is , in and of itself, immature. The criteria used is notability and verifiability. Every day there are deletion discussions on those topics for many articles and most of the time the articles are kept. This is a port of a project you are directly involved in (bias), of which '''not one verifiable independant source has been yet produced''', and the deletion review is not another AfD but a review of the AfD to see if it was done properly. Ranting screed about "personal agenda" doesn't change that. The AfD was clearly closed correctly, half of the debate was from someone threatening to disrupt Misplaced Pages just to make a point, and there wasn't a single source in the discussion that merits review. If you don't like the policy and you don't want to contribute '''verifiable''' information in a manner that '''consensus has determined is best''', then ''leave'' and stop making grand accusations about the "destruction of potential." --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It's not that I do not like it. Using the fact that some unknown anonymous idiots showed up and defended the article in an inappropriate manner before any of us valid, known members of the Doom Community had a chance to even find out about its AfD as a valid reason for its deletion '''is''' immature. By this standard, I could, right now, go and post annoying statements on any page that is AfD and this would result in its deletion. Can you not see the danger inherent in this? You'll enable anonymous users to cause the deletion of articles by "supporting" them in inappropriate manners. I am NOT involved in the development of Skulltag. I would love to know where you obtained such information. I am a developer of the Eternity Engine source port, which has absolutely nothing in common with Skulltag aside from the core base of the Doom engine itself. I do happen to know Carnevil, its principle author, and we have collaborated on some problems in the past. I already contributed several links above to confirmation of Skulltag's possibly notability which have been completely ignored. And I can't believe you're going to tell me that if I don't like it, I can leave. That's certainly not a cooperative, community spirit.--] 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Valid, known, members"? Why do I constantly see the argument that an AfD is improper unless people who have a COI, or at LEAST members of the overseeing Wikiproject, come flooding in? Verifiability is simply not dependent upon who you are. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, I wouldn't try to argue that. I'm not saying members of our community should have sole authority on such articles, but it would certainly be nice if we could at least be involved in the process. Who else is going to be more knowledgable on the subject? Anyway, I'm ducking out of this before it turns any nastier. I would really like a chance to at least rehabilitate information in the article in a different form, but it appears even that would be asking too much. We in the community are making plans on how to save the information in these articles before it is mass-deleted, and my energies would be much better spent to that end.--] 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Knowledgeable or otherwise, the rules apply to you as they do to everyone else. Content must meet the überpolicy ], no matter who contributes it. No sources, no article. It's ''that'' simple. ] <small>] </small> 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There are sources of information on Doom source ports. If we had known the article was at risk of deletion, we could have added appropriate citations. But this would have made no difference in light of WP:SOFTWARE anyway.--] 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::There's the misunderstanding again. You don't add citations if you think the article is at risk of deletion. You add citations as a matter of course. ] <small>] </small> 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' Argument for keeping this article is weak almost to the point of non-existant . ] 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - total farce of an argument for keep votes, plus ] violation threats, plus total lack of sourcing, verifibility, notability, and debate properly closed. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. There are no reliable sources. It does not matter if it's notable, without reliable sources. And 1 keep argument based on "WP:SCHOOL isn't a guideline!" (ignoring how that wasn't the sole argument), 1 based on "But one person saying something IS a reliabel source!", 1 at least providing sources, but still ones that gave trivial coverage, and 2 ] votes... There were no keep arguments, really. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion'''. I should point out that I'm the author of the source port, and have been active in the Doom community for many years now. Despite all this, I don't think Doom source ports are something notable enough for wikipedia. The article on Chocolate Doom was deleted as well, and I'm fine with this! For Doom fans, we have . ] 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion'''. `'] 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Downsize''' As it's clear that individual Doom source ports do not merit full pages, simply put in a forwarder to the much broader list at ] and protect. That solves the problem of confusion and potential revival as well as potential confusion over why it was deleted in the first part. The entries at ] can then link to the Doom wiki articles. ] 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse AfD closure''' (per ]), but also '''recreate as a redirect''' as ] suggested. This should be made a redirect anyway, as it is a plausible search term. ] 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse redirect''' (if I can do that) to ]. Important information has already been merged there. ] 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion and salt the earth''' per the previous policies aforementioned.--] 16:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:'''Comment''': SALTing should not be done unless absolutely necessary if the article is changed to a redirect (as I and others believe it should be). ] 19:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|emmanuel}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/emmanuel| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an important Catholic word and term that has been deleted and ''protected'' (apparently for a speedy NN something) without any clear reason for those of us stumbling on it now. For example: I came upon it as I was working on ], which uses the Hebrew spelling of Emmanuel in it's logo. I wanted to add a link to more about the term and found a deleted/protected page. As another editor noted: The ] , isn't it a little strange we don't? ] 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Before it was replaced with a blatantly non-notable biography the page redirected to ], so I've replaced that redirect, leaving the protection on. Although I endorse the deletion of the biography (not necessary anyway, as it's not being challenged here) I agree that it should have been redirected to a useful page rather than replaced with the unhelpful {{tl|deletedpage}}. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''': that makes total sense and is completely acceptable to me. --] 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Unprotect''' and redirect per Sam Blanning. ] 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Looks like a redirect to ] makes more sense. ~ ] 03:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I would have thought that the Hebrew word is by far the most common use of the word, so redirects should go there, and those looking for something else can follow the link at the top to the disambiguation page. However, may as well '''unprotect''' so those interested can work this out for themselves. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse status quo'''. Redirect is sensible, though probably should point at the dab page. ] <small>] </small> 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''': It's true that we'd need a move to change the redirect direction, but let me also urge '''protect the redirect''' to prevent another "my buddy emanuel is soo kewel" stuff coming in. Then again, it's possible that we need to dab someone like ]. ] 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Oh come! Emmanuel? We should redeem this captive redirect to Israel. Or something :o) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Looking at the deleted page history, I can see why this was deleted even while disagreeing with it. As Sam pointed out, at the time of speedy-deletion, the page had been converted into a resume. However, the original speedy-deletion and all the subsequent deletions were '''incorrect''' because the page had non-vandalized history. This page should have been reverted to the original version (as of 06:26, 30 April 2003 by ]). By the way, that version was the same redirect to ] that now exists. If the vandal had persisted after being reverted, the problem should have been solved via pageprotection and/or blocking, not through {{tl|deletedpage|}}. To preserve GFDL-compliance and generally put things right, we should '''history-only undelete the non-vandalized edit, delete the protectedpage edits''' and move the discussion about which redirect target is best to the respective Talk pages. That's not a question we need to solve here. ] <small>]</small> 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|