Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 7: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:49, 7 August 2008 editVacilandois (talk \| contribs)298 edits →IGO Search ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:49, 7 August 2008 edit undoProtonk (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,727 edits →List of Cogs: noNext edit →
Line 26:		Line 26:
	I am only asking for undeletion of edit history and (can even be protected) redirect per . Thanks! <font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)		I am only asking for undeletion of edit history and (can even be protected) redirect per . Thanks! <font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	*I've redirected the article already, as it's pretty simple to just restore the history under it regardless and I'm pretty sure the redirect is uncontroversial enough. I don't really see restoration of the history under it as terribly useful, however. I'm open to being swayed on that, though. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)		*I've redirected the article already, as it's pretty simple to just restore the history under it regardless and I'm pretty sure the redirect is uncontroversial enough. I don't really see restoration of the history under it as terribly useful, however. I'm open to being swayed on that, though. Cheers. <font color="green">]</font>] 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Probably not'''. The suggested redirect target doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see any good reason to switch to a ] system on the sly here. The ex post facto redirect suggested is not a reasonable search term and does not benefit from the history of the page being attached (it would, in fact, confuse me to see an article about Toontown online redirected to GoW). The 'redirect and protect' results from the Warhammer AfD's and DRV's were compromises stemming from the fact that a significant amount of information that pertained to the parent existed in the redirected articles--history in that case could be used to selectively merge certain items to ] from a daughter article. It didn't define a new stance toward deletion or set the stage for the same sort of suggestion to be used where the 'parent' and 'daughter' articles have no topical relationship. ] (]) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 21:49, 7 August 2008

< August 6	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 8 >

7 August 2008

IGO Search

Deletion without editorial concensus, based on opinion of one single editor, who refused to explain reasons for deletion nomination, despite many comments and questions from the article's author. Suspicion of an extreme case of deletionism and/or abuse of editor power. I would have thought that in Misplaced Pages it is not possible that one single person wrecks work of somebody else, without discussing, without opinions from other people. I would like to reopen a proper discussion about what, if anything, was inappropriate about the content, so that it could be improved. Marking the work of as 'blatant advertisement' was almost an insult, especially if the person failed to provide any reasons. Thanks for any help on investigating both the article publication and the suspected deletionism issue. Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid my suspicions of deletionism and power abuse are growing. When I asked for more information to the editor who had my article speedy deleted, the editor did not act on my valid complaints and questions, and even deleted my text from his talk page. Here is the last revision, where my complaint was deleted. How can deletions be discussed when people solely responsible for them delete the questions? I call for an objective investigation of this case, or for directions on how to conduct one. Thanks for any advice.--Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close. Personal attacks and snotty comments do not a cogent argument make. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Corvus cornix. Summary: one single person has deleted my page without proper reasons, despite me actively trying to discuss solutions to the situation. What can a simple editor like me do in such cases? Please help. --Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Cogs

I am only asking for undeletion of edit history and (can even be protected) redirect per . Thanks! Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the article already, as it's pretty simple to just restore the history under it regardless and I'm pretty sure the redirect is uncontroversial enough. I don't really see restoration of the history under it as terribly useful, however. I'm open to being swayed on that, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably not. The suggested redirect target doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see any good reason to switch to a pure wiki deletion system on the sly here. The ex post facto redirect suggested is not a reasonable search term and does not benefit from the history of the page being attached (it would, in fact, confuse me to see an article about Toontown online redirected to GoW). The 'redirect and protect' results from the Warhammer AfD's and DRV's were compromises stemming from the fact that a significant amount of information that pertained to the parent existed in the redirected articles--history in that case could be used to selectively merge certain items to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) from a daughter article. It didn't define a new stance toward deletion or set the stage for the same sort of suggestion to be used where the 'parent' and 'daughter' articles have no topical relationship. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ort Institute

Incorrect deletion under G11 and G12 criteria. The G11 and G12 criteria specifically state that a page can only be eligible for deletion trough these category if:

G11 It is blatant advertising
G12 the article is a literal copy of the external source

Both of these do not apply anymore. The Ort Institute has been fully rewritten in a non advertising way (Copy can be found here). Even though the previous version of the page was blatant advertising and a likely copyvio (i tagged it for removal myself three times), In its current state the article does not, to the best of my knowledge, violate any policy in such a way to warrant a CSD template.

I also notice that the deleting admin has also removed Bramson ORT College, a page which has been discussed at WP:ANI for a possible copyvio (). However, Since that ANI notice was placed several editors have completely re-written that article in a way that i cannot imagine it is still a possible copyvio, although i have no way to check this anymore Excirial 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn both After some rather sketchy allegations had been made that the Bramson ORT College had been in violation of WP:Copyvio (based on duplicate text on a Misplaced Pages mirror), the article had been restored to a previous version as a stub. I had added to that stub material that is fully referenced from reliable and verifiable sources. The article does not contain a word that can possibly be deemed to violate a copyright. Even if there was a perception that the policy had been violated, WP:Copyvio provides rather clear instructions for dealing with copyright violations: 1) the infringing material should be removed. 2) if all (emphasis in original) of the material violates the policy, revert to a non-infringing prior version; and 3) delete only if none of these can be done. In both cases, the articles had been completely rewritten to address any possible copyvio issues. The speedy deleting administrator has failed to specify what material has infringed on a copyright and has failed to take the required steps to address the supposed violation without deletion. As the G4 G11/G12 requirements have not been met and as both deletions are completely out of process, both articles should be undeleted. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The Ort Institute was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, not G4, and Bramson ORT College was WP:CSD#G12'd. Also, a page with the title ORT INSTITUTE was previously deleted under G11 as well and is currently at DRV here. ~~ORT INSTITUTE is salted due to repeated recreation, so I'm salting The Ort Institute pending the result of this DRV.~~ Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, already salted. lifebaka++ 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The CSD justifications have been corrected. The argument that the deletions were improper stands. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops is also the word i need to use now. The template left on my talk page signaled it was deleted due to G4, but the log shows G11. Doesn't chance much to the case though, as the CSD sill does not apply. I updated the text to reflect the logs though. Excirial 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn both Firstly The Ort Institute was completely rewritten from the previous article deleted at ORT INSTITUTE (which I have endorsed the deletion of at the previous DRV) and cannot see it as being a page which 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. It does not look to be a bad start to an article for me. Also it is not a valid G4 as the nominator has stated (no previous AFd) and because it is completely different to the previous version.
Secondly the Bramson ORT College article appears to have been rewritten from scratch and not using any copvio material. Again it now looks to be a good valid start for an article. Therefore I cannot see it as being a valid speedy deletion for copyvio. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge discussion to the below DRV on ORT INSTITUTE. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Astro empires

Wuite popular among gamers, and GameZone will give it a complete review. I suggest the administrator restore the article and let editors add reception from GameZone later. RekishiEJ (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from closer: It is my firm opinion that the consensus in the discussion indicates that the game is not yet notable, though the release of the GameZone review may change that. The review has yet to be posted to the site, however (yes, I did just go check), and so the article should not currently exist. I stated in the close that I'm willing to restore when the review is published. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)