Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:35, 28 June 2005 view sourceJaberwocky6669 (talk | contribs)3,544 editsm →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 07:37, 28 June 2005 view source Radiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits unlist causes celebres and cambridge university, neither has a majority for undeletionNext edit →
Line 172: Line 172:
***Normally an image is not deleted if it is used in any article (even BJAODN). This one must have slipped past. - ]]] 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***Normally an image is not deleted if it is used in any article (even BJAODN). This one must have slipped past. - ]]] 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***I just noticed a new edit to ] to warn admins to check "what links here" before deleting. This should lessen a repeat of this situation. - ]]] 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***I just noticed a new edit to ] to warn admins to check "what links here" before deleting. This should lessen a repeat of this situation. - ]]] 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===June 18, 2005===
====]====
This category was proposed for deletion on grounds of vagueness but the vagueness simply came from editors putting their articles in it wrongly. A ] is something quite definite. I created the category in December and tried to put all the causes célèbres I could think of in it - there were about 20. Since then it has grown to more than 90 which is an indication that this category is well thought-of by its users. I was not alerted to the deletion debate until finding it by accident just under a week after it had started, which I think means that it had insufficient chance for proper consideration. ] ] | ] 15:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Original discussion from CfD is here: ] --] 16:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**Do you have any reason why? If I had had the opportunity I would have made the case for its retention immediately it had been nominated, but I was not told and just chanced upon it. No reason was ever given for nominating it, and as you must surely realise the number of people who visit ] is tiny. This issue simply '''has not been considered''' and it deserves at the least a debate. Please do me the courtesy of arguing it rather than relying on the caprice of who happens to wander by Categories for Deletion. ] ] | ] 16:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***After reading the discussions made at CfD, I agreed with the points made in favor to delete. --] 17:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
****What 'discussions'? There were none! ] ] | ] 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*****The original discussion from CfD is here: ] --] 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
******Makes my point entirely. It's a list of assertions. No-one makes an argument until I added my own vote. ] ] | ] 17:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*******People make the argument that the category is ill-defined. The distinction between a normal cause and a Cause Célèbres may be perfectly clear to you, but there exists no consensual non-ambiguous definition thereof. '''Keep deleted'''. ]]] 21:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
********A ] isn't a cause. It's a French phrase in common use in English. The French word 'cause' means a legal case in English. Do I take it from the fact that you did not know this that you are in general ignorance as to the significance of the articles in the category? ] ] | ] 23:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*********You know, asserting that other people lack the intelligence required to join the debate is not winning you any points for civility, nor is it a sound argument. ]]] 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
**********Stop distorting what I've written. Intelligence is completely different to knowledge, and it's knowledge which you manifestly lacked. How about reconsidering your vote now you know better? ] ] | ] 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***********How about you reading ]? ]]] 08:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
************Proposing my favourite category for deletion and not telling me is a very uncivil thing to do. ] ] | ] 09:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*************If you had had it on your watchlist, you would have known. How exactly are people supposed to know it's your favorite category? ]]] 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
*************That is one of the silliest arguments I've heard on WP yet (and that's saying something). Do you really think that the Wikimedia Foundation keeps a master list somehwere of everyone's favourite stuff, and sends a singing telegram to your door when one of your faves is up for deletion? Come on, now. Since it's important to you, you should have put it on your watch list. Keeping up with your favourite WP content is your responsibility, not WP's or anyone else's. ] 12:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
**************Who is being silly here? Firstly: Most categories proposed in CFD either contain virtually no articles or are simply being renamed or merged. Here the whole category has more than 100 articles, but is proposed for '''outright abolition'''. It's therefore a bit more of a fundamental issue than a normal CFD vote. Remember, unlike an article which can be restored, a category can't: it would need a thorough search through article histories in order to find which articles had been in it. Secondly, the contents of my watchlist is a matter for me and not you. However if you check I have created only two categories, and the other was a purely routine matter. What I would have expected '''as a matter of civility''' is that the nominator drop me a note to raise the issue first. And Andrew, your response is uncivil to me. Please do not do this as it is against WP policy. ] ] | ] 15:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***'''Question''': Can you explain how this category is different than ]? Or why we should keep, in the english Misplaced Pages, a clear duplicate of Landmark cases, just using French? --] 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**** I'll try. A ''Cause celebre'' is not necessarily always a legal case, or a legal case where a decision has been rendered. ] implies a decision which is final, all arguements have ceased (to wit, ], etc); ], on the otherhand, never stood trial, so his invlovement (or lack thereof) would qualify as a ''cause celebre''; similiarly ], while fully exonerated, some would still consider a ''cause celebre''. A ''cause celebre'' could be applied to a political scandal, like ], or ], cause it suggests NPOV in absence of a final judicial finding which then would make it a fully qualified ]. ] 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid CfD for valid reasons—no possibility of clear criteria for inclusion, and no purpose served by trying to form such a group other than to attach a POV designation to the articles. ] 16:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**That's competely untrue. But surely the point is that that issue was '''never raised''' during the CFD discussion. ] ] | ] 16:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***It's why I voted to delete in the first place, even though I didn't bother typing it out (an express rationale isn't necessary for a vote, just for the deletion nomination). The words "POV", "inherently arbitrary", and "vague" were also used, so everyone but you were apparently on the same page with this one. ] 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
****There was no "express rationale" for the deletion nomination - no rationale whatsoever. ] ] | ] 18:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid CfD. People can express their opinions or not, though I wish they would, but their votes are valid whether you agree with them or not. ]] 21:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
**I'm not saying their votes are invalid. I'm saying the valid votes of those who want to keep the Category have not been counted because they have not been cast because those editors were unaware of the debate. That's unacceptable. ] ] | ] 21:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***Er, what? The page was listed for a week (per procedure) and had a plainly visible tag on the category itself stating "this category is to be deleted". It got more votes than the average CFD entry. I'm afraid we cannot get every Wikipedian's input on *FD pages. ]]] 21:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
****What do you mean "Er, what"? One week is clearly not sufficient because CFD doesn't get the traffic. I'm not saying that every registered user must vote but one week is a ridiculously short time for a page which is barely noticed. Please do not misrepresent me again. ] ] | ] 22:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*****If you disapprove of present CFD policy, you should propose an amendment. Plain fact is that by ''present'' policy, this category was properly deleted. Regarding your accusation of misrepresenting, please show me where I'm ''representing'' you in the first place. ]]] 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
******Your misrepresentation is your claim that I demanded that every Wikipedian's vote be needed on the CFD debate. ] ] | ] 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*******Ironically, that is a misrepresentation of my statement. ]]] 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
********It is not a misrepresentation: it must have been your argument otherwise you would not say "We cannot get every Wikipedian's input". ] ] | ] 15:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Valid CfD. ] 21:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
**No it wasn't. Please supply an argument. ] ] | ] 22:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***Well, so far, most of your reasoning is that not enough people voted for the CfD. In reality, the CfD got more votes than average and was up for the normal time as stated in official policy. I don't see any evidence at all that policy wasn't followed. ] 01:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
****That's not an argument against undeletion. ] ] | ] 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*****Actually, it is. There are only two circumstances in which undeletion can happen, and they're listed right on top of this very page under the "Purpose of this page" heading. Reason #2 clearly does not apply here, and reason #1 doesn't fit either because deletion policy was fully followed. In fact, it specifically states, and I quote: "''Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.''" Therefore, not only is there is no reason to undelete, there is no reason (within policy) to even nominate for undeletion. ] 12:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
***Your problem seems to be with the CfD process in general, not with this particular CfD. You might want to bring any suggestions over to ]. -] 07:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
****That's a separate issue though. The defective current policy should not be allowed to abolish a category which is extremely popular with editors, having now gathered more than 100 articles. ] ] | ] 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*****1) I don't see how that's a separate issue at all. 2) Just because it's been populated with over 100 articles doesn't mean that it's popular with editors - after all, it only takes a minimum one editor to add a category to 100+ articles. 3) If it was really that popular with editors, it wouldn't have been voted for deletion in the first place, and/or would have been unanimously considered for undeletion here. -] 04:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
******It's a separate issue because a defect in process ought not to lead to a miscarriage of justice simply because the defect in process simply hasn't been remedied. As for the number of articles, just look at the number of editors who have added articles to the category: your argument is hypothetical, mine is real. As for popularity, the category's supporters never got a look in at the CFD debate, and the best argument that can be adduced here is "the CFD debate followed policy". That's really neither here nor there: CFD policy is defective and those expressing an opinion here ought really to reconsider the issue on its merits. ] ] | ] 15:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''; Oxford defines as "A notorious legal case; generally a controversy or scandal that attracts much attention." It expresses NPOV for a "scandel" where there is a "good guy/bay guy" dispute. ] 00:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' a perfectly valid CFD. I stand by my original view that ''causes célèbre'' is far too vague a notion for a category. - ] 00:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. A lot of the votes both on the original CfD ''and'' on this page seem to have happened because people don't understand the meaning of the phrase. Due process is all very well, but it doesn't trump common sense. ] ] 00:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', I see this as being quite an important category. --] 02:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted/Re-delete'''. Ambiguous and, in its current incarnation, far too broad in scope; could theroetically cover anything and anyone that has ever caused controversy. (]? Come ''on''.) ] could cover the general entries in this category, and ] or ] could cover the specifically trial-related entries. ] doesn't exist (justifiably, IMHO, as it would also be ambiguously broad), and the latter category or categories could be created from, or as a parent to, ]. -] 07:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
**Surely a ] is a power of magnitude more vague than a ]? Why do you promote it as an alternative when it clearly is not? ] ] | ] 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***I'm not - I did say that it was as vague as this category is. (Then again, somebody thought that ] was a good idea.) -] 05:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
*'''The VfD for this appears to have been conducted properly, yet for some reason, the Category appears to still be in existence, for whatever reason, whether because it was improperly removed (which begs the question, "What maladies affect the admins?", was never actually removed (which would beg the question, "why a VfU?"), or has been vandalistically reïnstated (which begs the question, why has a RfC not been filed against the apparently vandalist reïnstator?). So, like I said, the VfD appears to have been conducted properly, so this should '''remain deleted''', but if this really is a rehash of the vote at the original CfD discussion, I'd like to weigh in by saying, '''delete''' this arbitrary Cat. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> 07:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
**The category was marked for emptying, but before that could be done, it was listed here, presumably to keep it from happening. --] 15:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', went through CfD properly and the reasoning given (much too fuzzy) makes sense. --](]) 23:51, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Valid, worthwhile, and encyclopedic category. ]<font color=#2554C7> </font>] 10:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', inherently POV and vague collection, hece useless. There were millions of notable events. ] ] 06:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Who deleted this? It's an EXCELLENT catagory. Meaningful and fun to browse. Idiots. ] 00:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Valid process, and no, I'm not interested in discussing it. --] | ] 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

====]====
This was speedied from the look of the , but I'm 99.9999% sure I had read the page before. I suspect it had been vandalised and speedied a little too fast. I could be wrong, though.-] 03:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
*Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Only two edits in the undeletion history&mdash;an obvious test of random characters, and the application of the speedy delete tag. ] 03:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' This seems to be a weird article to suddenly stick vandalism on, given the existence of a similar article in ]. But it's possible the vandal simply followed a redlink from ]. --]] 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - nonsense - entire content: "'''dtht'''" - ]]] 15:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


===June 14, 2005=== ===June 14, 2005===

Revision as of 07:37, 28 June 2005

Shortcut
  • ]
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

Purpose of this page

It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:

  1. People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.
  2. Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
    • As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

How to use this page

This Misplaced Pages page has been superseded by Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review and is retained primarily for historical reference.

To nominate a page for undeletion:

  1. Place the page title on Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry. (~~~~)
    • Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with policy after being listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for Deletion should not be listed unless new information has come to light. If the article was deleted because it was a stub and contained little or no information and you believe you can write a non-trivial non-stub article on the subject, you should be bold and write it, rather than request the stub for undeletion. The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to policy" does not apply to a good article about a subject for which a stub was deleted earlier.
  2. If the page was deleted via the Misplaced Pages:Votes for Deletion process rather than something that was speedily deleted, place a notice on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion with a link to the Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion heading for the article.

If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).

When undeleting an article:

  1. List the article on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion. Further discussion can take place on the votes for deletion page, and after about a week the undeleted page will either be deleted again, or left undeleted.
  2. If the deletion was not via VFD, notify the deleting admin that you undeleted the page.

If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete. If you wish to only view a deleted article, list it in the temporary undeletion section and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form — either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also Misplaced Pages:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.


Temporary undeletion

Votes for undeletion

June 28, 2005

BBC North West Today weather game

Result of Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/BBC North West Today weather game was to merge, but instead of converting this article to a redirect after merging its content, the article was deleted. Undelete and redirect to BBC North West Tonight in order to remain GFDL compliant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

  • Undelete

Pentecostal Assemblies of the World

I have never before seen this page, but I noticed it in recent changes as a strange deletion. The article and its talk page were deleted with the note for talk page deletion of: "content was: 'This page appears to be a copyvio of http://www.biography.ms/Pentecostal_Assemblies_of_the_World.html . If no one claims otherwise within a week, I w...' (and the only contributor was 'Avocado')". Quick scan of the site with the copyright Misplaced Pages is supposedly infringing reveals, at the common place to expect copyright information (the bottom of the page), that it claims to be from Misplaced Pages.

How a copy of a Misplaced Pages article is used to justify the deletion of that very article due to copyright violation is utterly beyond me. The content from the other site indicates it was a decent article; deleting it without the slightest bit of research into the validity of a copyright violation is unacceptable; most of us know that several sites copy Misplaced Pages verbatim. — 131.230.133.185 28 June 2005 06:35 (UTC)

  • Undelete Deletion seems to have been a simple error, though it's possible the other page didn't have the WP copyright note in place when the deleting admin looked at it. Should be undeleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 06:44 (UTC)
  • I'd vote but I don't understand what the paragraph is trying to say! Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
  • Obvious undelete, as simple mistake. Tupsharru 28 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to blame Petaholmes too much for deleting this, since it had been on WP:CP for a week with no objections. But if the copyright issue is resolved, undelete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)

June 26,2005

Misplaced Pages:Checkers

I can easily understand why one should see this page as not upholding what wikipedia is about but it was deleted without due process by User:Danny. Taking action without following rules is not what Misplaced Pages is about either. I propose that the page be restored and sent through VfD so that Wikipedians may vote on its fate. The page does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The page was merely blanked out and not even deleted because the talk page is still there and the subpages are still there too. Also, the same user that blanked my page has a page on the Department of Fun, and there is a Chess page there too! All I ask is that the page be given its fair treatment. That is all. Good Day.Jaberwocky6669 21:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate, should be given a VfD run at least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If this was a Misplaced Pages game along the same lines as Misplaced Pages:Chess championship, then this was absolutely not a speedy candidate. Give it its fair hearing at VfD, though I imagine the consensus will be to keep it anyway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and give it due VFD process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 07:22 (UTC)

June 24, 2005

Universist

The Universist Movement is quickly gaining notable attention worldwide. Could this possibly warrant a new review on keeping an article about them? If you Google "Universist" you will note over 26,000 articles or discussions on them.

I submitted the article this time without prior knowledge of Universism's past history with Wikepedia and it was automatically deleted without it showing up in the history section as to who deleted it. Let's be fair about this without using past prejudices. IMHO, speedy deletion this time around should not be allowed, it does not meet the criteria. kkawohl

See also Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement and Talk:Universist. --cesarb 03:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Deleted This article was Validly VfDed TWICE before, also failed Undeletion attempt in March. At the end of that VfU, a consensus was made not to revisit the issue for a year (until March 2006), see poll at bottom. Suggest that this be delisted from VfU in accordance with that consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong keep deleted and entirely agree with Starblind that this should be speedily unlisted to prevent yet another lengthy pointless debate. Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, the "26,000 Googles for Universist" is incorrect. With duplicates removed the Actual Google Score is 247, and not even all of those are relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I contest this claim. Google never displays more than 1000 results, and it seems that these 247 are only unique hits among these 1000. If the ratio of duplicates is the same among the remaining hits, I would estimate about 6500 unique ones. - Mike Rosoft 10:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The main problem with it is verifiability. It does not matter how many bloggers use the word "universism". There will be no wikipedia article until a publication in a reputable source will appear describing this movement. No original research here. mikka (t) 03:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Went through a valid VfD process. --Deathphoenix 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Will this ever end? Gamaliel 01:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh God, not this again. Keep deleted. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Zeus, Thor, Osiris, etc., please protect us. Keep deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Although I, at least, am willing to revisit it somewhat sooner than March 2006, its time certainly has not come yet. Maybe, say, November, if evidence is given that it actually has substantialy expanded. And such evidence should be given a particular forum in which to be addressed, which should be neither VfD or VfU. -R. fiend 03:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Physical space

As i explained on the Talk:Physical_space page this is an important topic, not nessesarily just about space the final frontier, this page is and should be about inter human perceptions on space and design and cultural customs. It needs to be kept and worked on, it is a globally cultural issue, (for those that travel). Space is just not the place to put all of this additional info. imho. sunja 09:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From VFD:: - Mgm| 11:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you mean Physical space which is still there. By the way, the article survived as a redirect. Steve block 09:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - as Steve block said, the page remains. Most of the sensible content of Physical space was absorbed into Space which apart from being a reasonable article contains many links to more specific articles about space, and Physical space was redirected. I see no reason to change this and, anyway, can we VfU a non-deleted page?-Splash 12:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: as stated above, this article was never deleted, so doesn't need to be VfUed. On the second hand, this VfU nomination is based on notability, a content argument, which IMO is the wrong reason for a VfU. --Deathphoenix 13:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 22, 2005

Vince DeMentri

I see no reson why this person should be deleted as opposed to the numerous article on numerious other brodacasters, espically those from the New York market and no one has question those articles. The "vote" was tainted by to many sockpuppett votes froma user that has a sigificant anti-Philadelphia bias. For those who do not know Philadelphia is not mid-market, Tulsa is mid-market, Philadelphia is the 4th largest televison market in the Univted States, only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are ranked higher, whcih means on any give night theis anchor is seen by some where around 1,000,000 television watchers. WP:BIO is a flawed process, based on it's cretiera i would estimate that some where arond 50% if not more articles based on entertainment related figures would be deleatable. And we are in shuch in a hury to delete articles on real people that arn't vanity, we let sand the hundreds of artivcle on minor characters from things like starwars, pokemon, many artciles are just a chart, et al. But thats the VFD mistake for you. But being i am asking the "establishment" to do something aginst their grain, in the end this undeletion request will more then likely be futile. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)WITHDRAWN, article has been rewritten.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Despite Boothy's claims, the article has not been rewritten; he has simply reposted the original version. Several times. Radiant_>|< 09:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please radiant why dont you lie to us somemore. --217.17.41.72 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you don't like the VfD process or WP:BIO, try changing them first. This seems to be a correctly done VfD, Keep deleted. --W(t) 06:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Undelete, including alleged sockpuppets that vote was 12-7 which is not a consensus. Exluding them makes seems to make it even less of a consensus. Kappa 06:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, VFD was valid. Votes of new users (plausible socks) should be discounted, and not all such votes are marked such in the discussion (e.g. AdamTheHun has ~30 edits). I'd say cesarb has done well in sorting it out. Plus, articles must stand on their own, and comparing the deletion of an article on a person to the keeping of an article on pokemon is a false analogy. Radiant_>|< 08:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The VFD debate is here. When I make a vote tally I find these clearly "good" delete votes: Spotteddogsdotorg, Geogre, RickK, Smack, JamesBurns, Xcali, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Grue, Quale. UncleFloyd's is also probably good faith, but his first edit was June 14 while the debate started June 12. In total 9 or 10 delete votes. As for keep votes we find Kappa, Bastique, SchmuckyTheCat, AdamTheHun, Unfocused, and Kaibabsquirrel. In total 6 keeps. This is a majority for deletion, but it is well short of a two thirds majority, and definitely not a consensus, and I see nothing unusual in the comments and reasons given to say that there was a consensus after all. On the contrary, considering that the VFD debate for Tracy Davidson resulted in a keep, consistency would be that Vince DeMentri also be kept. The VFD debate was valid, but the correct result would have been calling it "keep, no consensus". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm, interesting. If you go by contributions, then UncleFloyd's vote is valid and AdamTheHun's is not, making the ratio 10 to 5. If you go by date of account creation, then UncleFloyd's vote is not valid, and Adam's is, making the ratio 9 to 6. If you go by rationale of voting (or lack thereof) then both sides are rather lacking. Bottom line? Cesarb was not out of line in deleting this. Since I believe VFU should be about the process and not the content, my vote to keep deleted stands. We may want to consider making the process more explicit, but that, too, has its dangers. Radiant_>|< 09:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • AdamTheHun's account has been at Misplaced Pages almost as long as mine has and should be counted. The fact that UncleFloyd has continued to make constructive edits makes me lean towards counting his vote, so 10-6 is my count. Not a consensus in my book, nor would 11-6 be a consensus. In general I think a closing admin should have a very good reason to delete an article if the debate is short of a two-thirds majority. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • One other thing about VFD, there is no well established rules for what is the suffrage, but the VFD header does say something about the time the user been at Misplaced Pages ("Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made."), while it does not say anything about number of edits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid VfD. One thing to keep in mind is that VfD is not only about vote counting, but is also about the vote closer exercising judgement based on the discussion. The number of votes was almost exactly on the border for consensus, so ceserb had to look at the discussion itself. I don't think he made the decision out of process, so therefore I think it should be kept deleted. --Deathphoenix 12:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As the one who deleted it, I have done a recount, to be able to present how I counted things there:
    • Spotteddogsdotorg: delete
    • Hohokus and Melvis: both delete. Both are sort of new, but were not created after the voting began. I believe I ignored Melvis, because it had too few edits and all were VfD or TV related.
    • Geogre: delete
    • Kappa: keep
    • Bastique: keep
    • Smack: delete
    • JamesBurns: delete
    • Xcali: delete
    • Jeffrey O. Gustafson: delete
    • SchmuckyTheCat: keep
    • ConeyCyclone: delete, but too new (created on the same day of the log). Ignored.
    • Jinkleberries: keep, but too new (created on the same day of the log), and suspicious (see the noticeboard discussion). Ignored.
    • RickK: delete
    • AdamTheHun: keep. Few edits, and I believe all TV related, but old enough.
    • Grue: delete
    • Unfocused: keep
    • Kaibabsquirrel: keep
    • Quale: delete
    • UncleFloyd: delete, but too new. Ignored.
    Total: 10-6
    That value might not be exactly the same one I used the first time, but it will be pretty close. As said above, there are no established rules as to how much is needed, and the discussions count. Other admins might count things differently; I'm just presenting the way I did. And as to whether to keep deleted or undelete, I have no opinion; I abstain.
    --cesarb 12:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted We must remember that VfDs are not votes in the strictest sense, and that the regardless of the exact count, it's up to the closing admin to make the call. While an undelete might be warranted if the closing admin's decision is obviously directly opposed to the consensus, that clearly is not the case here. It was a close one, the admin made the call, and that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Valid VfD, Keep deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - valid VfD - Tεxτurε 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid VfD. --Kbdank71 17:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. valid VfD. No do-overs without cause. --Calton | Talk 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You know what i am just going to withdraw this, and recreate the article as i see fit, based on failure of the lemmings (admin) department, the establishment at work again. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And it will be speedily deleted as the admins see fit, as a re-creation of a deleted article. Pretty simple. --Calton | Talk 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, looks like it was deleted and recreated immediately, with a comment that an speedy delete will be considered admin adbuse. --Calton | Talk 08:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay. The page was recreated today, deleted by MGM, recreated again, and deleted by me. I've protected it now, it should stay that way until the VFU runs its course. Radiant_>|< 08:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • He's recreated it again under /temp. I have moved that version to his userspace, and given him a warning to stop subverting process. Radiant_>|< 09:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • He moved it out of userspace, and recreated it once more. I'd say that qualifies as vandalism; I also count four attempts within one hour to put this article in userspace, which runs counter to the spirit of the 3RR. He's been blocked for 24 hours. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the latest incarnation contained significantly more information than the previously deleted articles. - Mgm| 11:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, Radiant you are wrong, the article has been rewritten since it was on VfD. The VfD version was two sentences long. Furthermore the criteria for speedy deletion says "Reposted content that was deleted according to Misplaced Pages deletion policy." It doesn't say "new content with the same title". Rhobite 15:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, the article has been expanded. However, since the VFD was about the subject rather than the size of the article, it is debatable whether the current version is encyclopedic. That's for this VFU to decide; consensus seems to lean towards 'no' at the moment. I do hold that repeatedly recreating it while VFU lasts is a bad thing. Radiant_>|< 16:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • The VfD was in reference to a three sentence stub, while the "current" article is a decently-written seven paragraph bio. It's simply naive to suggest that the VfD would have gone exactly the same for both articles. It's also naive to suggest that the article would have been deleted if it had been rewritten immediately at the start of the VfD. Most people are loath to cast a "not notable" vote for a subject with a readable appropriately-sized article. Rhobite 16:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted He is a very localized person, as is his co anchor Tracy Davidson, who I would like to re-nominate for deletion since she is of the same ilk as Vince DeMentri and the votes may have been tainted by Boothy443 - how do you do that?. If we have every anchor for every local TV station it is going to get crazy. In some cases that is fine, as in the case of New York City where the stations are seen internationaly, but that is an exception to the general rule. Spotteddogsdotorg 00:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To renominate, you wait some time (a month or three would be fine) and put it up for VfD again. But your reasoning has be strong, else all you will get is a "speedy keep" from the VfD regulars. Also, even if you are right, you will be flamed at least once during the discussion. --cesarb 02:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is the difference between localized and very localized? To be honest with you, I'm not in Philadelphia (that's where he is, right?) but the broadcast area is in the millions, if I'm not mistaken. ℬastique▼ 02:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He is in Philadelphia, which does in theory have a viewing area of millions, but that alone does not make him a notable person. What I mean by "very localized" is that the person would have little, if any, notablity outside of his local area. It is not like someone in Costa Rica is sitting down and watching him every night. Spotteddogsdotorg 04:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete Boothy443's behavior should not factor into this VFU. If the effort to resolve what many people considered a worthwhile vote for deletion was made, then why shouldn't the article be put back up? ℬastique▼ 02:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Boothy's behavior doesn't factor into this. Vince's article was deleted for lack of notability. It has now been recreated in expanded form, but that does not make him any more notable. Radiant_>|< 11:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Borderline VfD vote, but no reason to challenge sysop's judgement call. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 20, 2005

Stacey Castro

She is a bona-fide entertainment industry executive who manages known artists and actors. Many of her clients are listed here in Misplaced Pages. Yahoo, Google, etc. give many search results for this person.

  • comment as VFD'ed as vanity, and got consensus to delete, albeit with a low number of votes (two deletes, one abstention). Was later recreated, and speedied for that. At first glance her page is sorely lacking in verifiability. Radiant_>|< 07:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Went through a valid VFD here. --Deathphoenix 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Valid VFD (with a low vote count, but there's no rule against that). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. With a low vote count I am sometimes willing to vote undelete if there is information about the subject that did not surface at the VFD. Unfortunately, managers are not inherently notable while the artists are, and I see no good reason to overturn this debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - valid vfd vote - Tεxτurε 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. Please stop recreating deleted content and adding self-promotional edits. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 19, 2005

Image:Ac.aidsindia.jpg

Was linked to in the latest BJAODN entry, and I'm curious to see what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.165.143 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but images are unundeletable. --cesarb 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, there's an image of the same name on other wikis, not 100% sure that it's the same one, but it probably is. Try this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone knows why it was deleted. Maybe it should be re-uploaded? Many pictures exist just for BJAODN's sake.  Grue  05:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 14, 2005

GAP Project

Article has 2 copy vio deletes.

First delete was wrong because the material was PD and still is. I wrote it myself but I cant proove that so nevermind the first copy vio. Or the canadian government is violating copyrights.
I am not arguing to restore this one because..
1)I have already written the page
2)I dont care
The second copy vio is nothing close to the alleged page. Hence a copy vio cannot be the case. The page was declared a copy vio and was deleted in 5-10 minutes of this. --Cool Cat 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete --Cool Cat 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The version dated May 3 has direct word-for-word copies from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm, just as the copyvio boilerplate indicated. That version is nothing like http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html. There is a stub now. If you want to rewrite it in your own words, please do so. Keep deleted. RickK 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Look I am sick of dealing with this I wrote the article with my own words from scratch and that was declared copy vio. I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd. I want the later version restored. No copy vio is the case. I dont enjoy writing same articles to be deleted without being read. COMPARE the latter version please. There are two copy vio cases. First one, I ma not discussing. Second is definately not copy vio. --Cool Cat 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Copyvio. Gamaliel 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you compare the first or second copy vio case? --Cool Cat 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can someone give a quick comparison between the two deleted versions and the two web versions? --Deathphoenix 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Case withdrawn. Page was restored. Anyone can compare. --Cool Cat 13:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would appear that User:Coolcat has unilaterally restored the last version that was removed as a copyvio. Should be deleted again unless copyvio case is cleared. — Davenbelle 07:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have reverted it. RickK 06:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not the first time that Coolcat has caused trouble through his dishonest use of copyrighted material and his inability or unwillingness to communicate clearly about the issue (see this earlier discussion on my talk page for an example; the article discussed there was also one he later tried to get undeleted). I think we need a long-term solution for his conduct. Postdlf 15:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: on the talk page CoolCat claims original authorship of this text, implying it's a GFDL release by himself (while explaining his desire to be anonymous). Later, User:ugen64 finds some evidence that some of the text might have a U.S. Gov public domain origin. CoolCat then picks up on the PD angle.
  • Questions;
  1. why doesn't Coolcat know or say that the text in question is PD until ugen64 points it out (assuming that it really is PD)?
  2. if CoolCat really wants to remain anonymous then why does he claim authorship of text that will eventually reveal his identity?
This just doesn't make sense.
I'm also getting fed up with CoolCat's administrator shopping. Several times now various administrators have interceded with the copyright violation listing process. Or questioned me or re-evaluated past CoolCat copyright violations that I processed (Silsor, Burgundavia, Frazzydee, ugen64). When I try to find the relevant discussions between CoolCat and these administrators I can't. I certainly don't begrudge these administrator's actions, but I'd like to know what CoolCat is saying behind my back regarding these copyright violations, since it reflects on me and it keeps wasting my time, over and over and over... --Duk 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, CoolCat says that the second deletion as a copyright violation was not right, that it wasn't close to the noted source. Take a look a the paragraph starting with the sentence that I noted on the talk page (you need to look at the deleted page). I don't know how CoolCat can claim this isn't copied. --Duk 07:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted unless a PD source is verified, then note this source, otherwise it is plagerism. Oh, by the way, this will also reveal CoolCat's identity ;) --Duk 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted unless PD source is verified. Jayjg 16:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, it's been ten days, and this has consensus to keep deleted. So why is the article still there? Is the copyright issue cleared up by now? Radiant_>|< 08:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    unsure, however the article has moved to Southeastern Anatolia Project and Atatürk Dam... — Davenbelle 08:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 Categories: