Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 11: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:56, 11 August 2008 editGreg park avenue (talk \| contribs)1,340 edits request to relist del art← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:03, 11 August 2008 edit undoProtonk (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,727 edits →Wraith Squadron: noNext edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	All I am asking for here is an undeletion of the edit history and (maybe even protected) redirect to ]. The phrase is a legitimate search term and there was some material in that article that could be merged elsewhere. Yes, I see that someone moved the other article here; however, during the Afd I had added some review links that could be used in both this article and some of the character articles. Is it possible to merge the edit histories therefore or add the revisions so that they sources can be utilized? <font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)		All I am asking for here is an undeletion of the edit history and (maybe even protected) redirect to ]. The phrase is a legitimate search term and there was some material in that article that could be merged elsewhere. Yes, I see that someone moved the other article here; however, during the Afd I had added some review links that could be used in both this article and some of the character articles. Is it possible to merge the edit histories therefore or add the revisions so that they sources can be utilized? <font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Again, probably not'''. There doesn't seem to be a reason to void the deletion decision. Pure wiki deletion systems have been proposed in various forms and rejected by the community many times. The same arguments from the "List of Cogs" DRV apply here. ] (]) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 18:03, 11 August 2008

< August 10	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 12 >

11 August 2008

God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis

clearly no-consensus, please, relist or move the content of the deleted article to my page, this article is in a GA class frame and doesn't need extra work, merge or move would suffice greg park avenue (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wraith Squadron

All I am asking for here is an undeletion of the edit history and (maybe even protected) redirect to Wraith Squadron (novel). The phrase is a legitimate search term and there was some material in that article that could be merged elsewhere. Yes, I see that someone moved the other article here; however, during the Afd I had added some review links that could be used in both this article and some of the character articles. Is it possible to merge the edit histories therefore or add the revisions so that they sources can be utilized? Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, probably not. There doesn't seem to be a reason to void the deletion decision. Pure wiki deletion systems have been proposed in various forms and rejected by the community many times. The same arguments from the "List of Cogs" DRV apply here. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics highlights

This is an improper close as a speedy keep. I'm counting several editors besides the nominator calling for deletion and speedy keep does not make an allowance for it to be used in this situation regardless of whether or not its linked from the main page. Even if Kusma believes the nomination to be disruption the presence of other editors (8 in addition to the nominator) calling for deletion negates that rule of Speedy Keep. Crossmr (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, reopen the AfD and let it run five days. If it closes as anything other than keep (or no consensus defaulting to keep) then the main page link can be updated accordingly. There's nothing that says these things have to happen in one order or the other. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait until the Olympics is over. At least that how it was done with Beckham's contract AFD; since the article was in ITN, it was "immune" from deletion until it was taken off. –Howard the Duck 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse If this page gets deleted, then it would almost certainly be proper to have a seperate page for every day of the Olympics, as they would all have significant amounts of media coverage. The WikiProject Olympics page decided to have this instead, though, so that would be the proper place to discuss any changes. Benjaminx (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

I deleted this article, as the subject did not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO, based on the citations used in the article. The creator contests the deletion, arguing that the subject's German bio is more complete, and asserting that he has written two significant books and 14 others (found on Amazon), has over 12,000 google hits, has made 60 or so documentary movies for Austrian television, and has won Austrian state and Vienna city medals of honor. I have not verified the accuracy of those claims, except the google hits: my own test returns just over 7,000 hits, but I haven't checked to see the quality of the hits, or whether or not they all refer to the same Erich Feigl. Jayjg 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion based on a rough consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was strong indication that deletion request and some of the support was highly politically motivated, not related to concerns about notability. His one book has attracted strong negative attention from a certain ethnic group. Prof title was removed by the original editor pending better investigation. Most references did refer to him as Prof. He is in German Misplaced Pages and books are in Amazon. He has met most of theWP:BIO requirements.--Murat (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho/lefthand

This userbox was speedily deleted under the T1 criteria. T1 specifically states that it only covers templates that are in template space, yet this is in userspace. Even if T1 did cover userspace, how was this template "divisive and inflammatory"? If this was substed onto a user page directly, how would it have been dealt with? I doubt very much there would ever have been a consensus to remove it, and a user wouldn't have been blocked for displaying it on their userpage, which makes this userbox speedy deletion against policy and should be overturned. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse: Perhaps the deletion reason was not completely acceptable according to our guidelines and policies, but this userbox is ridiculous - and does not help improve the Encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. I'm fine considering this an IAR deletion as its presence on any page reduces our credibility as a legitimate Encyclopedia. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, it doesn't help build an encyclopedia, but it neither do many userboxes. We usually allow users to have a large margin with what is acceptable on a userpage. What would happen if I put a hard copy of this on my userpage? Would I be blocked or would it be removed? I doubt that. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Good point - lets delete those too. (And I'd hope it would be removed). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    - No user in good standing would be blocked for having this userbox, neither would they have it removed. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      - Of course blocking would be extreme - as for a removal, well, there are 1600 admins - I don't think you know what all of us would do. Anyhow, we agree to disagree - feel free to leave further on my talk page. I'd rather not clutter up this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Absolutely no reason for this to be advertised on a user page. ~~Also potentially insulting to those who are left-handed.~~ And I can certainly see someone with this userbox being asked to have it removed, good standing or no. Hersfold 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- As a left handed person, I can assure you that this isn't insulting - well, personally I don't class it as something to be updet about. No comments on your other reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Ok, not being left-handed myself, maybe I'm overreacting. But I do still stand by the rest. Hersfold 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Saying this is acceptable sets a bad precedent. What next, userboxes for the entire List of sexual positions? Common sense people. BJ 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse: not being an admin I can't view the exact content, so I can only go on what others have said. While the deletion may technically not have fallen under any of the CSD criteria precisely, and while "divisive and inflammatory" probably isn't a strictly accurate description, there is no way that I can see that this template could possibly advance the project in any way, shape or form. WP:UP#Inappropriate content states "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense", which appears to be relevant here. Now that it's gone, I see no reason to bring it back. --RFBailey (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see the userbox by checking the cache at this URL. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you---it's really made my evening..... --RFBailey (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn per consensus precedent at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_4 (User:Bluedenim/Blondes). It has been determined by long-standing resolution, that userboxes would be converted to userspace. In userspace, we allow alot of latitude for users to express themselves. Content would have to be outright disruptive to be considered deletable. Except in extreme extenuating circumstances, deletion of userspace content without the agreement of the user requires a discussion at MfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. This nomination coming from the user with a penis on his own user page is simply shocking. With this nomination, you're saying you believe that users should be allowed to declare, in userbox form, which hand they use to masturbate, and include an image? This is a legitimate and good-faith effort by you to improve the project? Really? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn Holy crap, what is wrong with you people? No matter what you might feel personally, this is obviously not a valid speedy deletion. It's ok to violate the deletion policy just so long as the deletion agrees with your view? Shame on you. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Overturn I have to agree with ned that deletion policy means what it says. i think this would be deleted easily enough at Mfd--I certainly am not prepared to defend it--. We have a proper procedure,/ this is not the sort of an emergency requiring IAR speedies-- as sexual content goes this is not exactly a major scandal. DGG (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse per WP:IAR. Completely inappropriate content, no use running it through an MFD which would almost certainly come up with the same result. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhere on the scale between wanting to overturn and wanting to endorse. On the one hand, we should know better as admins than to circumvent the deletion process without a Very Good Reason. A userbox offending some people is not a Very Good Reason, it's merely a good one. In this case the deletion could have waited for the conclusion of an MfD without hurting anyone or anything, so there's no basis for needing to apply WP:IAR in the original deletion. Misuse of the WP:CSD also rubs me the wrong way, since it's got so much less community overhead to prevent abuse.
But at the same time, an MfD for this would inevitably be a snowstorm in August, so there's no point sending it there now. There's no question this isn't a useful userbox, and I would probably !vote to delete it myself.
Since I can't make up my mind between those two, put me down as neutral. I just figured some of the above needed saying. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)