Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:23, 14 October 2005 view sourceTitoxd (talk \| contribs)43,130 edits →[]: this isn't AFD← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:26, 14 October 2005 view source Android79 (talk \| contribs)10,494 edits →[]: KDNext edit →
Line 34:		Line 34:
	I don't know what the article looked like, but I do know that we have an article for ], as well as other courses of meals (see ], ], ], ], ]). For consistency and symmetry, we ought to have ] as well. Furthermore, in the ], it was put forth that this article was a dicdef that has already been transwikified, but as you can ], there is no corresponding article there. Also, for the record, :de and :fr have articles for digestif. -] \| ] 03:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)		I don't know what the article looked like, but I do know that we have an article for ], as well as other courses of meals (see ], ], ], ], ]). For consistency and symmetry, we ought to have ] as well. Furthermore, in the ], it was put forth that this article was a dicdef that has already been transwikified, but as you can ], there is no corresponding article there. Also, for the record, :de and :fr have articles for digestif. -] \| ] 03:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
	*]. So it's been transwikied — the transwiki shows what the article was and you can see why it was removed. There was nothing wrong with the AfD, although it was towards the low end of numerical (ack!) consensus. So '''keep deleted''', ''but'' that does not completely prejudice you writing a proper encyclopedic article on ] that is not a mere dicdef and that actually deals with the encyclopedic side of things in the way that ] does. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)		*]. So it's been transwikied — the transwiki shows what the article was and you can see why it was removed. There was nothing wrong with the AfD, although it was towards the low end of numerical (ack!) consensus. So '''keep deleted''', ''but'' that does not completely prejudice you writing a proper encyclopedic article on ] that is not a mere dicdef and that actually deals with the encyclopedic side of things in the way that ] does. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
			*(Edit conflict with Splash, some of this is likely redundant.) '''Keep Deleted''', valid AfD. Content before deletion was indeed a dicdef. Keep in mind that when something is transwikified, it's only put in a holding bin on the sister project to be evaluated – it's not automatically created as an article in the other project (at least this is how it worked on Wiktionary, last I checked). Feel free to create a new article on this topic if you feel it can be expanded beyond a dicdef – undeleting this one won't be terribly useful. '''''<font color="green">]</font>'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 03:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 03:26, 14 October 2005

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header 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.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. 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.

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.

Votes for undeletion

Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal.

October 13

Digestif

I don't know what the article looked like, but I do know that we have an article for aperitif, as well as other courses of meals (see entrée, Hors d'œuvre, appetizer, main course, dessert). For consistency and symmetry, we ought to have digestif as well. Furthermore, in the VfD, it was put forth that this article was a dicdef that has already been transwikified, but as you can see, there is no corresponding article there. Also, for the record, :de and :fr have articles for digestif. -Lethe | Talk 03:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

wikt:transwiki:Digestif. So it's been transwikied — the transwiki shows what the article was and you can see why it was removed. There was nothing wrong with the AfD, although it was towards the low end of numerical (ack!) consensus. So keep deleted, but that does not completely prejudice you writing a proper encyclopedic article on Digestif that is not a mere dicdef and that actually deals with the encyclopedic side of things in the way that aperitif does. -Splash 03:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Splash, some of this is likely redundant.) Keep Deleted, valid AfD. Content before deletion was indeed a dicdef. Keep in mind that when something is transwikified, it's only put in a holding bin on the sister project to be evaluated – it's not automatically created as an article in the other project (at least this is how it worked on Wiktionary, last I checked). Feel free to create a new article on this topic if you feel it can be expanded beyond a dicdef – undeleting this one won't be terribly useful. android79 03:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mountain-stub

Valid stub. It had been deleted before (the stub was by a different user), but it is valid. Deleting something because it had been deleted before is bad form, isn't it? --WikiFanatic

Comment - actually it had a SfD here and it looks valid to me... Ryan Norton 02:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - it actually says don't make me there. I wonder about WP:BEANS. Titoxd 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

International_Asperger's_Year

afd was obviously valid. The article was recreated later again - I asked User:Sjakkalle (the closer) to take a look at it to see if it was similar, and it was thus speedied. The thing is that it seems to assert much more notability then before - so I think maybe it needs a second opinion or two (I know you guys r busy :)). No opinion. (Oh, and I don't question Sjakkalle either - I just think maybe it needs another look). Ryan Norton 10:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - I looked at the old, the new, and the AfD. The AfD found it to be not notable outside the specialized field. (Hadn't realized that I voted on this one til I went back to the AfD.) The new article was essentially the same with the addition of a listing of "specialists and leaders have endorsed it". I didn't find any leaders in there - only professors and advocates specializing in Asperger's. I don't feel that this overturns AfD objections with international notability outside of Asperger's groups. Why isn't this just rolled into an existing article (if it isn't already)? - Tεx τ urε 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. AfD renders decisions on the subject of the article, (almost always) rather than the precise wording of it. So an article can use different words and still be substantially identical to the one that AfD concluded we should not carry. That is the case here: there is certainly no significant new evidence that the AfD editors were not in possession of at the time (nor really anything new at all), so there is no reason at present to reopen the AfD. As Texture points out, many VfUs could be handled with a one-sentence or so in a more useful article, so perhaps that is the best recourse here. -Splash 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted per the above. The less than 30 Google hits I get for this suggest it really isn't known much beyond the one local group which started it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian dictators

This article was incorrectly and hastily speedy deleted. Could a similarly reckless admin please speedy undelete it. See the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators--Silverback 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The original "category" that this "article" is supposed to be a repeat of, survived a vote for deletion, that was closed until that vote was vandalized. Here is the state at the original closure of the voteTHIS IS THE CLOSED VOTE THAT 172 REOPENED. This article is different from the category in that it advances some criteria for screening candidate totalitarian dictators.--Silverback 07:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This text is from a page I was refering to for evidence. Someone deleted this text and then protected the pageTotalitarian dictators was deleted because allegedly it was substantially similar to a previously deleted page.

I argue, that the previous page should not have been deleted, and was only because of misconduct by 172, after the vote had been closed, therefore it is not an appropriate page to compare to this page for speedy delete reasoning. I further argue that this page was in the article space that is substantially different from the category space because the category space impacts many more articles, intrinsically because of the way that categories are used. This article was also not a speedy delete case, because of these complications, duly apparent from the discussion that had already taken place, this page should have been kept open much longer for more discussion. I am hereby opening this for further dicussion and more votes. <Personal attack removed> Note, that a vote that this article is not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion is not necessarily the same as ones position on whether it should be deleted or not.

This is not the first time he has accused me of "deleting evidence" without any evidence of his own. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators. If Silverback writes an article that should be deleted, it is not "misconduct" or "vandalism" to place it on VfD. 172 | Talk 11:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you consult the admins and their talk pages that have for background on the irregularies in the Catagory:Totalititarian dictators deletion vote, after the vote failed and was closed. --Silverback 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In my efforts to make sense out of the nonsensical, I think that what Silverback means by "irregularities" in the CfD votes is my move to keep the page on CfD for an extra few days in order to establish a clearer consensus. Editors familiar with the process, however, will realize that this is hardly an "irregularity." 172 | Talk 11:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The admin who closed the vote the second time, User talk:Who said he would have reverted if he had know of your action. <Personal attack removed.> The original admin who closed the vote also disapproved of your action.--Silverback 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I informed the first editor to close the vote right away reopening the discussion. I don't think that his response to me was very constructive, but he stated no intention of reverting my edits and reclosing the discussion. Regarding Who, what he didn't know was his own responsibility; all the information regarding the reopening of the category was readily visible in all the discussions surrounding the category CfD. BTW, this finger-pointing is getting tiresome and childish already. The real issue was that the category was utterly unencyclopedic; thankfully there was a consensus to get rid of them. 172 | Talk 12:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Blame to cop for the crime because he didn't catch the criminal. I think you wrote some similar language about Khrushchev and the Berlin wall, blaming Kennedy for the wall because Khrushchev would have backed off if Kennedy had resisted. Why don't you take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others for allowing you to get away with it.--Silverback 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. You appear to be learning your spelling. You were having difficulties spelling "Khrushchev" the other day when you made the same stupid attack accusing me of being "an apologist for dictators" on User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. FYI, Silverback is referring to my writing in History of Russia, and FA. Sp apparently we can now conclude that there is community consensus behind blaming the cop for the crime because he didn't catch the criminal. Why not start a policy page for Misplaced Pages:Blame the cop for the crime because he didn't catch the criminal. 172 | Talk 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, it was giving me fits with search engines.--Silverback 12:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy undelete--Silverback 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted as Silverback neglected to mention it is simply an exact recreation of previously CFD'd content. If you want to try for a valid NPOV article there, which I doubt is possible, go ahead. But this was a valid closing. Dmcdevit·t 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- <Personal attack removed> Other voters should examine the evidence themselves.--Silverback 06:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Administrators, consider the above comments along with the policy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Silverback should be instructed to engage more civilly with editors who happen to disagree with him. 172 | Talk 11:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

- - - I restore my original text. When a sysop lies, it shouldn't be brushed under the rug, and it isn't an attack when it is a fact. His statements were an attack on the truth. Far more serious.--Silverback 07:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Right, yes, everyone go out and look at the evidence please, I agree. Here's the deleted category and this is the deleted article. Don't those words look familiar? You are quite a funny one. Dmcdevit·t 07:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Your links do not show the pages, so you didn't know what you were talking about when you said they were exactly the same.--Silverback 07:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Hm? Dmcdevit·t 07:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh I had forgotten that you need to be an admin to view that. Well, the links do indeed; this should explain it. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        Since I can't view the links I don't know which versions of the articles they preserve, assuming that they are good faith attempts to preserve the articles.<Personal attack removed> Why don't you go back and look at what happened on the Category vote, that User:172 deleted the vote closure on.--Silverback 08:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        Silverback is correct in pointing out that I deleted the vote closure on the CfD. That's what you do when you want to extend a debate on VfD or CfD. If a category vote is borderline, any editor can extend the vote in order to secure more time for a consensus to be established. The community can then go along with prolonging the vote or it can reject the move. At the time, I did not encounter opposition to reopening the dicussion. Silverback is only attacking me personally after the fact because he did not like the consensus once it was established. 172 | Talk 11:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        <Personal attack removed> I had no problem with the Category being deleted. I thought it was headed for defeat and had accepted that outcome. Later I visited the page and found to my surprise that the VfD had failed, so I resolved to work on the page to answer the criticism and help it to survive another VfD, I presume in a month or so. <Personal attack removed>--Silverback 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        By now your personal attacks have gotten so flamboyant and outlandish that they are no longer even worth dignifying with a response. Like your diatribe against the "liar" Dmcdevit, your spewage above should be subject to immediate administrative removal per Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. 172 | Talk 11:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        I had already apologized to Dmcdevit before you came along. <Personal attack removed>--Silverback 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I APOLOGIZE to Dmcdevit. If the Catagory page did contain my edits made after User:172s actions. Then they would look substantially the same. Although, that particular similarity is unreleted to this delete issue, since that was not the state at the time the original was voted on.--Silverback 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. El_C 06:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted--Doc (?) 07:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted article text is the same, just doesn't have the list added to it. - Mgm| 08:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- If the text is that nearly the same, it is because the wrong version has been preserved. I went back to work on the Category after its VfD failed, not realizing the the closure of the vote had been vandalized by User:172 after most people thought the issue had been resolved, so any changes that made them the "same" were after the so-called second closure, when the article was already supposedly deleted. --Silverback 08:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I noticed that an administrator already had to delete Silverbacks attacks on Dmcdevit. The baseless charges of vandalism against me are also vandalism, which should be removed. 172 | Talk 11:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    - The admin did not have to remove that, he merely thought it might be better if he did, and he let me know on my talk page. I restored it and when I found out I was wrong I apologized, you instead spin and justify. My charges of vandalising the process against you were not baseless, in fact you practically boast of the same behavior that I characterize as irregularity and vandalism.--Silverback 12:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, recreation of previously deleted category. Silverback apparently is arguing that the deletion debate regarding the category was closed without consensus; however, this was not the final result of the discussion. The attempted closure Silverback points to was improper, especially in such a close case, because it was performed by one of the partisans for the "keep" side. --Michael Snow 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- That was 172s accusation, but that admin had ruled on many votes before without regard to his position on the issue. So are you saying the 172s unilateral action was the proper way to handle it, a sort of justified civil disobedience? Won't that create more chaos?--Silverback 20:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The category and the article appear to be word-for-word identical. --Carnildo 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- The category was modified after the VfD, I know, I did it. The one that was voted on, was not word for word identical.--Silverback 22:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, the CSD state that an article can be speedy deleted if it is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy". Note that it doesn't say verbatim copy, it says substantially identical. And cool off, all of you. Titoxd 23:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Did you review whether the previous Catagory page was deleted "according to the deletion policy"?--Silverback 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  - If you want a review of the deletion of the category, maybe you should put that up for undeletion, instead of recreating it and then complaining when it gets deleted. --fvw* 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Yeah, I do see something wrong with the CFD: the fact that someone who voted keep closed it as no consensus, when there was a consensus, but not for keeping... Titoxd 23:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Note. I have (conservatively) removed personal attacks by Silverback in the places indicated above. Silverback, you are urgently requested to stop commenting personally and insultingly on other editors. Please comment on contributions, not contributors. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

October 12

Neleh Dennis

A user who put some degree of work into this article has come to me to discuss its deletion. I looked at the vfd page, and noted the rather small number of respondents. According to the user: "The logic for undeletion of this article is very strong. She was a runner-up in a very competitive season and a memorable player. Her loss to a very unpopular winner was controversial. The deletion of the article (not even considering my work, and the fact that it was more professional and better-looking than many existing articles on Survivor contestants), makes her the only Survivor runner-up to not have an article and also the only listed member of the template/table "Survivors who were never voted off" (which appears at the bottom of all of these entries--see Paschal English for example) not to have an article. I'd like to say all of this in a nomination, but I just don't know how to add it. Can you help me? I hope you can see why this deletion doesn't make sense to me in the light of her similarity (and even greater importance in some cases) to contestants who do have articles." Ingoolemo 04:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete and relist on AFD. While the VfD is valid, it happened quite a while ago, and if a proper assertion of notability is given, then it should pass. Titoxd 04:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD with a strong delete result, and I see no new information in the above nomination. --fvw * 04:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Deleted -- Should contestants in a game show or reality show get their own articles? No, not unless they set an extroardinary record, being a notable success or failure in the game: or if they had some other claim to fame. For the most part, important characters in a TV series should be discussed briefly in the article about the show. --Mysidia (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete because other runner-ups have articles. Grue 11:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete I am the user to whom Ingoolemo refers above. I wrote the article without knowing about previous deletion simply because according to the standards used for other Survivor and Reality Show contestants, she certainly warrants an article. To me, the two very strong criteria for undeletion are 1) All other runner-ups have articles (and she is from an early/still-novelty season), and 2) She is the only person in the teplate "survleft" to not have an article. She is far more notable than certain other runner-ups such as Clay Jordan or Kim Johnson, who have articles, or, for that matter than other contestants on her own season who have articles. I would be happy to see edits of the article where I might have been POV or placed too much information, but the argument is quite clear that this deletion does not live up to a rather well-established precedent for articles on "Survivor" (or other reality-show) contestants. I resepectfully and humbly request the undeletion of this article, with a further request not to relist it on vfd. I do, of course, have a vested interest, as it is the only wikipedia article I have created from scratch (under my IP address), and it was a lot of work. Thank you for consideration. If I am unsuccessful in this petition, I would ask for a similar review of articles on other "Survivor" contestants, particularly those in the "survleft" template. MahlerFan 12:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This article was created on Jan 17 and AfD'd the same day. It was deleted on Jan 23, after a 5-0 result (the creator, Val42, participated in the discussion but curiously did not vote either way, although he did provide his reason for creating it). It has since been speedied 5 times as a substantially identical recreation, most recently by Ingoolemo. As the AfD was perfectly valid, I do not see a need to vote to overturn the decision. MahlerFan, if you would like to have an article on this person on WP, the best thing to do is to see if you can write an article that overcomes the objections the community had about the original. There was concern about her notability. So try and write an article that clearly establishes that she is notable. Are there newspaper articles, books, theses, etc on her? If so, use them as sources. If you can reference your article to multiple independent, reputable works that have this person as subject, you could meet the WP:V and WP:RS requirements — WP:N in turn rests on those. If your rewrite meets those standards, it will be acceptable; at any rate it'd be sufficiently different from the original such that it cannot be speedied as a recreation; any attempt to delete it must then take place before the community on AfD, where clear adherence to policy will safely push it through. You can place your article for the time being on the Talk page or on one of your User pages; if it is not speediable it should be allowed in the mainspace (ie. the page should be unprotected). VFU is for procedural problems, and I don't see that any have been committed. May I ask an admin to confirm that the five G4 speedies were valid? Thanks. encephalon 13:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- History of the article:
  1. The version deleted on 23 Jan 05 as a result of the original VfD was a 4 sentence stub.
  2. The version deleted on 24 May 05 as a recreation-speedy was about double the size of the 23 Jan version and shows signs of having been rewritten rather than merely reposted but it failed to address the fundamental concerns of the VfD decision.
  3. The version deleted on 24 Jun 05 was substantially identical to the 24 May version.
  4. The version deleted on 6 Jul 05 was substantially identical to the 24 Jun version.
  5. The version deleted on 9 Jul 05 was a one-line stub.
  6. The version deleted on 2 Oct 05 was much larger and was clearly written from scratch.
- In my opinion, this last version contains a great deal of trivia and still fails to address the fundamental concerns of the original VfD decision. However, it probably is just barely over the line as no longer being "reposted content". Restore as a contested speedy and immediately AFD where I will vote against it because I believe that the subject fails to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. The fact that we have not yet deleted the articles about other non-notable runners-up does not persuade me to keep this article. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and resubmit to afd because the last version was obviously not merely reposted content. By placing a new afd debate, we can discuss the qualities of the article and not just how it was deleted. Ingoolemo 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, afd as per above --Monkbel 16:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There were many newspaper articles about her in 2002, most notably in Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune, but they would be old enough that it would be very difficult to find them in the online archives. Articles from Reality News Online would be possible to trace and link, as would the original profile on CBS.com. All I'm saying is that consistency should be applied. I would do my best to trace the Salt Lake City newspaper articles. My primary concern, as noted, is that this standard for deletion seems to only have been applied to her article, and not to other Survivor contestants (including many early departures in later seasons). I do think that if you compare my version to quite a few others in the "survleft" template, for example, you'll find that it is better (and yes, I do admit that there is a lot of trivia). The way I see it, this article is being singled out for no apparent reason, and if it remains deleted, then a systematic purge of articles on Survivor contestants should be undertaken, retaining only the winners or others who have achieved big celebrity status. Incidentally, she was a reporter on a local CBS affiliate for a time, and really quite a major celebrity in Utah. The fact that this celebrity waned largely due to her own withdrawal doesn't negate the fact that in 2002, she was very notable, one of the most recognizable faces in Utah. MahlerFan 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak ~~neutral~~ keep deleted - Valid VfD but I'm not certain I would vote to delete in a new AfK. If the article is kept deleted I may nominate Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk for deletion. Can't figure out why those two should have an article. May nominate even if this article is undeleted. They are the most not notable notables I have ever read about. It's like articles about movie extras as if they were actors. - Tεx τ urε 19:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It turns out newspaper, magazine, and reputable web site articles were not that hard to find at all. Here are a few:
There are a great many more. The Salt Lake Magazine article was a cover story (big glossy publication). I hope that these strengthen my argument somewhat. MahlerFan 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No one can say I didn't warn you. It turns out there are plenty of "reputable" web site articles on, you guessed it, my left shoe. (they weren't that hard to find):
- My left shoe coronation petition: http://www.petitiononline.com:80/blinkie/petition.html (Reassemble to see this. Spam filter won't let it in.)
- The hole in my left shoe (could be a sub-article): http://english3.fsu.edu/writing/book/view/342
- One left shoe by Jewel (I'm sure it was written about my left shoe): http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/PrintLyrics?OpenForm&ParentUnid=FEC9C0BCB5F96175482568CD003354A7
- Bobby's left shoe (For the Category:left shoe): http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/03/1064988390636.html?from=storyrhs
- Everyone's left shoe (To expand to a meta-article): http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/queen19.shtml
- The google satellite photo of my left shoe: http://tardis.nu/~mageeol/photos/thanksgiving_2002/day2/pict0043.jpg.html
There are a great many more! I hope that these strenthen my argument somewhat. (Changed my vote from weak neutral to weak keep deleted.) (Got caught in the spam filter - will try some changes...) - Tεx τ urε 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:o enceph alon 20:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Now that's not fair. I have been nothing but civil. Why are you making fun of me? I was only addressing what somebody said I should find--newspaper articles, etc. Deseret News is one of the major newspapers in the western United States and one of the articles I cited was a cover story of a major regional magazine. I am not an "established" Wikepdeian, but I think I do deserve to be treated better than being mocked and parodied for bringing up a relevant issue. None of those links in your "parody" are comparable to what I put up. I dunno. I thought I was making a pretty good case, but I guess ridicule is the order of the day. If this is how it's going to be, I'm not going to even bother anymore, and it's not that important to my life. I'm a published reviewer in a newspaper and I have a Ph. D. I don't need to be treated like this for merely asking for some consistency in deletion policy and not wanting my work to be wasted. Goodbye. It's a pity really. I was looking forward to taking part in the wikipedia community with my newly established account. MahlerFan 20:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I am making fun of myself in an earlier vote. I apologize for it as a response to your comment as it was intended to lighten the mood and not darken it. I actually think the other two articles (Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk) are more deserving of deletion and if this article is undeleted and returned to AfD I will vote to keep. However, since this forum is for reviewing articles that did not have a valid reason for deletion I voted "weak keep deleted" since it keeps with the consensus gained during the AfD. (So far I think you are likely to get your undeletion and AfK.) - Tεxτurε 20:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Texture, that was perhaps unwise in this context, although i quite understand your point. To those who havn't been regualr's on VfU, the point has arisin before that real and verifiable things may not be proper subjects of a wikipedia article. But this is not the kind of extreme case where that argument really applies, IMO -- the nom is trying in good faith to indicate the notability of the subject. DES 21:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    - I agree that the nominator is acting in good faith. That's why I apologized for my insider joke. As a matter of process I gave it a weak kd because I feel the deleting consensus deserves respect but I will vote keep if it is undeleted and AfD'd. - Tεx τ urε 21:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and relist on AfD at once, per Rossami. We always tell people "If an article was delted write a better one on the same topic, it won't be subject to automatic deletion just because a previous article was AfDed." We should stand by this, and while I'm not convinced that without additional support the longer version would pass an AfD, I don't hink it is "substantially similar" to the version discussed in the AfD. Note that if there hadn't been an expanded version i would probably have said "keep deleted, and write a better article". DES 21:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete on the grounds (based on what I read above) that a revised version was speedy deleted, even though it wasn't identical to the first version. AFD results should stand, but only for the substantially similiar content. --rob 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, AfD per above. BDAbramson 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak undelete - (Reversing my first two votes) - I just looked again and I can see that the content is different enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. - Tεx τ urε 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete per Rossami, as a contested speedy. Xoloz 22:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note that merely being contested does not entitle it to undeletion. If someone contested an article containing "lksdfhlkdsj", we'd keep it deleted. In fact, only A7 currently provides for disputedness to go to AfD. -Splash 22:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  - By the same token, I should hope that if Northern Ireland, or some similarly contentious non-bio were speedied in error, that the action would be reviewable notwithstanding that "only A7 currently provides for disputedness to go to AfD." In any event, my comment was meant to specify that, while I support the original AfD result, I agree with Rossami that the Oct 2 recreation was probably not appropriately deleted as reposted content. Xoloz 03:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have to dispute Splash's interpretation of the rules for speedy deletions. Under our current policy and following the practice that has been in effect ever since speedy-deletions were first created, any speedy can be challenged and, as long as the challenge is being made in good faith, be speedily restored with the discussion taken immediately to AFD for decision. The clause was made explicit for case A7 due to quirks in the way we voted on and added cases to the CSD page. Nevertheless, the rule has always applied to all the cases. The rule works because we trust admins to evaluate the challenge and to recognize that when the article reads "lksdfhlkdsj", the challenge was not made in good faith. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, Texture, and accept mine for overreacting. I didn't understand the context, and I believed you were ridiculing the articles I posted. I get it now, and should not have made a grand pronouncement. I do hope that you administrators will check the external links above if and when the article is listed again on VfD, and if you need more support, I think I can provide it. There were some articles from the Salt Lake Tribune about her, but unfortunately, their archives are not accessible, as DN's are. If it is restored, I will take it upon myself to revise it a bit, and document some things with external links, etc., to make it conform to a better standard. Thanks so much for the messages and for understanding a "newbie"'s mistaken reaction. MahlerFan 01:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, this is the inside joke. Man, Texture, I just went through half a month of diffs... do I get a right shoe in return? ;) :P Titoxd 02:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is the edit that gave it life. After the user asserted that just existing was enough to qualify for an article this response made it stick in my mind as a metaphor for elevating the mundane into notability. (My current my left shoe list includes Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk but not the updated Neleh Dennis.) - Tεx τ urε 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

October 11

Ar15.com

Brief summary: This article was deleted back in December (discussion here) recreated recently and edited with a variety of vanity postings (typical forum in-jokes, etc). The article was non-encyclopedic and properly deleted, and mods interpreted that behavior as indicative of a non-notable site. The page was also locked to prevent future creations.

However, I believe the web site is notable for inclusion, my full argument is at ]. The gist of it is that a) we are a forum with over 80,000 active users b) we are a resource for hands-on firearms information on the internet, the most active (for firearms sites, alexa ranks us third behind only two auction sites). c) we have been active in 2nd amendment activism and have been quoted in print media as a benchmark of the "firearms community"

I have created a proper encyclopedic article (and am researching more info to add) here as an example of what it would consist of.

I respectfully ask that the page be undeleted.

--Mmx1 03:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox moved and link fixed. --cesarb 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete. Site seems sufficiently notable, judging by Mmx1's proposed article. KeithD (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AFD. The content of the version deleted following the deletion debate was "AR15.com is a website devoted to the AR15 rifle and is home to a discussion forum that discusses everything to bumpfiring an AR15 underwater to the existance of bigfoot. It also features 'movies' that star dolls." The version which was speedy deleted was a full article, and cannot possibly count as a "substantially identical" copy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Unprotect so Mmx1 can attempt a serious re-write. After a reasonable (and probably short) period, open a new AFD discussion because I'm not sure that 80k users is necessarily sufficient to sustain an article with a proven history of being vandal-bait. However, that judgment call should be made after seeing the revised version and should be made on AFD, not here. Mmx1's commitment to monitoring and protecting the article over the long-term would make a difference to me in the AFD discussion. However, since Mmx1 will be creating the new article from scratch, I see no reason to undelete the old version. That would just load all the old vandalism into the page history. Rossami (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Unprotect, create and AfD, no reason not to given that there's a good-faith article on offer. -Splash 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, since the deleted edits are vandalism, but unprotect so a good article can be written. Titoxd 22:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, unprotect, list on AfD. Despite the mention of VfU on the {{deletedpage}}, shouldn't requests of this sort go to the "page protection" area instead? There have been a few requests of this type in the recent past... - brenneman 03:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, they would just send it back to us because we protected it, and because it is within the scope of the deletion policy. Titoxd 03:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  - As long as we don't say we're "undeleting" something when we're not, I'm happy. - brenneman 23:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Unprotect and allow rewritten article to go through normal process. FCYTravis 05:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unprotect. Let create new article from scratch. AfD only if it will be needed. --Monkbel 16:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, unprotect This allows Mmx1 to create a rewrite, while keeping the vandalism deleted. -- Irixman 20:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Browncastle

This article about a forum was deleted back in August under the consensus that it was a no-name forum. This forum is directed towards Waterloo Region highschool students. The forum's size represents nearly 20% of the student body of Cameron Heights where it is targeted and nearly 5% of a district of nearly 15,000 highschool students. A large amount considering the diversity of Cameron Heights and the Waterloo Region.

I agree that a forum of its relatively small size does not need an article to itself. However, the article was not deleted following the process dictated by the deletion policy, as it should have been merged into the Waterloo Region article as indicated under the deletion policy which states that the solution to an article that is "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" is to "merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect". I sumbit that the article be temporarily undeleted as allowed by the undeletion policy which states that articles may be temporarily undeleted for "non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, ... to use its content elsewhere...", and its useful content merged with the Waterloo Region article.

Temporary undeletion, merge with appropriate article I vote that the article be temporarily undeleted and its content moved to the Waterloo Region article. Paul Cyr 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion, merge with appropriate article I believe that the article on Browncastle.net should be undeleted on the grounds that it is a vital part of the student community in Waterloo Region. 199.212.250.96 12:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Vanity and cruft which is subtrivial to Waterloo Region and therefore needs not be mentioned there. Dunc|☺ 13:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Says who? Do you live in the Waterloo Region? You think something involving 5% of the student population is vanity and cruft? Perhaps you could address the points raised instead of just spewing out unsupported cruft. Paul Cyr 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Wishing the outcome of the debate had been different is not a reason for overturning it. If you want to, there's nothing stopping you freely adding a mention to the relevant article yourself. And, incidentally, you're not asking for it to be transwikied, which is to move it out of Misplaced Pages: the 'sister site' thing refers to other Wikimedia projects, not other Misplaced Pages article. -Splash 13:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Am I wishing that? I think quite clearly I showed why the Deletion Policy was not properly followed. Instead of telling people what they are wishing (and clearly being wrong) you should try to add some support to what you say by addressing the points that were actually brought up. And sorry, I shouldn't have used the transwikifing alternative, I should have used the content retreveal alternative. I've updated the proposal. Paul Cyr 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
When were you last persuaded to someone elses point of view by that person being rude to you? I don't think I ever have been. My reason for keeping deleted is in the first sentence of what I wrote: there is not a reason to overturn the VfD. You can add a mention to the target article in about 15 seconds. It took you longer than that to copy paste mild incivility into this discussion. -Splash 14:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid AfD. --fvw * 21:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Except for that the AfD was not valid and it was clearly shown why. Try addressing the points instead of just writing "Keep deleted, valid AfD" and looking like you didn't even read the proposal. Paul Cyr 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - valid AfD - Tεxτurε 21:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Except for that the AfD was not valid and it was clearly shown why. Try addressing the points instead of just writing "Keep deleted, valid AfD" and looking like you didn't even read the proposal. Paul Cyr 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to expand my opinion. (Thanks for yours, however.) It is a valid AfD and you have given no reason to invalidate it, imo. - Tεx τ urε 15:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, I don't see anything to invalidate the AfD. Titoxd 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
And I don't see anything that shows you even read the proposal. As it clearly shows a concern with an inproperly followed AfD. Paul Cyr 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, might I ask you, why should we undelete it? If my math is right, you're talking about 750 students. For God's sake, I have an Economics class that's bigger than that, and it is not inherently notable. Also, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Precedents states that "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Outside of that, the users who went to the AfD are allowed to have as high or low inclusion standards as they desire. And there is no reason to do an undeletion here for a merge; a brief mention of the site inside the Waterloo Region article can be done with one sentence. Any more than that would be considered inappropriate (I might go ahead and dispute the merge as inappropriate, because the region is more than a school district; also, no one brought it up in the AfD, so no one considered that it was appropriate either). However, this page is about process and not content, so I insist, I don't see anything to invalidate the AfD. Titoxd 03:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. Valid AfD. Participants in AfD discussions are well within their rights to vote to delete an article if they feel that the article's subject is of such narrow interest that merging is unnecessary. android79 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
And your arugment would work, had they discussed the possibility of merging. The undeletion policy allows for undeletions for these very reasons of an AfD not persuing all possibilites. Paul Cyr 03:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I see no such requirement in the undeletion policy. Frankly, this "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is tiring. I concur with Tito – there's no need to undelete this article if you want to include information about it in Waterloo Region. Anything more than a sentence or two in that article would be overkill. android79 03:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I never said it was a requirement, I said the undeletion policy allows what I'm asking for. I also never said that I wanted the article to be permanently undeleted, I simply wanted a temporary undelete so I can make sure I get all useful comments; hence the quotation from the undeletion policy in the original proposal. If what I ask is unreasonable, then I'll ask you why the undeletion policy makes such statements. In response to the "I'm right, your wrong" attitude comment, it is tiring; so why don't we just delete the whole Votes for Undeletion article. But you see, this process exists for these very reasons. And I don't see mine and your discussion as a pissing contest, as you are the first person who actually tried to explain and support their opinion. Paul Cyr 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The conduct of the AfD appears acceptable, a fact not disputed by the nominator. However, issue is taken with the delete decision, which is held to go against the deletion policy. I believe this is a misunderstanding of the passage. It is true that it can be advisable to merge useful content pertaining to a minor branch of a subject into a main article. However, this cannot reasonably be taken to mean that any subject, no matter how obscure, should find a place in a related article of a more general nature. For example, I would not expect sentences describing each and every American website to appear in the article United States of America. Likewise, Browncastle is simply a tiny internet forum apparently frequented by some Waterloo students; it is of completely tangential interest to an article on the Waterloo region. Delete votes on this AFD are perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, while Paul is well within his editorial rights to introduce material pertaining to the webforum into the Waterloo article, I do not see that it requires an undeletion of Browncastle, nor do I think that this will improve Waterloo. With respect to the undeletion policy, it may be noted that requests for temporary undeletion to review or retrieve content are usually appealed under Content review or History only undeletion above—there is no need for the article to be reintroduced to the mainspace; I would not object to a history only undelete. Finally, the question of undeleting an article based not on the belief that the AFD was procedurally flawed but rather on the contention that the AFD discussants failed to follow the deletion policy is an interesting one. If we all shared this view, we'll have to revisit numberless AFD decisions, including for example a majority of school articles that were kept. In practice, the decision of the community on AFDs is held with a certain respect and is not lightly overturned. I know only of infringements of WP:Copyrights leading to reversals of this type. kd. enceph alon 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - Forum has not stated any claim to encyclopedic notability. FCYTravis 05:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep delete valid afd. Ryan Norton 05:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted as per User:Encephalon. The notation in the deletion policy that a "small branch" of a subject should be merged to a larger article can at best be considered a suggestion, because wht constitutes a small branch of a larger subject, and what constitutes a small subject related to a different larger subject is always open for discussion. By the nominator's reasoning, any AfD that ended in a delete decision when a merge is at all arguable should be overturned, as should many keeps. DES 16:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted per Android79's comment. BDAbramson 21:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - a valid Vfd. The deletion policy allows votes of merge and for the results of some debates to be to merge content, but is not required (any more than an undelete is required), and the merge option was not the result of the debate, in this case. Participation by 5% of high-school students in an area would not necessarily make a website notable enough to merit mention in an article about an area (for the same reason that roadways, streets, intersections, or shops only known to 5% of the local population, are probably not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about the area), and the basis for the claim of such a high participation rate in the one forum seems questionable. --Mysidia (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Penis-showing game

I speedy deleted this as nonsense, but its author contacted me asking to undelete it, so I'm opening a VfU discussion. Keep deleted. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Waiting (film). I don't know what the content of the original article was, but this Google search suggests to me that it shouldn't have a standalone article, but that there is a legitimate case for a redirect to this film. KeithD (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. My creation of the penis-showing game page was not nonsense as the craze is sweeping college campuses nationwide. The word "shizzle" for instance, is nonsense, but to claim a page shouldn't exist because of this is baseless. A better claim would have been it being stupid and/or derogatory, both of which would also have been poor reasons for deletion. The movie "The Aristocrats" is both, yet a page dedicated to it has been formed. So, if a game such as tic tac toe can have a page, then surely so can a nonsensical, stupid, and derogatory game. Thank you. MacAllah 07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AFD. This is coherent enough to deserve a discussion. Movies can in fact lead to notable fads, though without the addition of some sort of source material showing that this is notable, I would still expect it to be deleted at the end of the discussion. Dragons flight 07:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What did it say? encephalon 11:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have temporarily undeleted it so that it can be viewed. To me the content looks so ridiculous that I won't vote to undelete it, although the validity of the sppedy is dubious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks Sjakkalle. I agree with all of you that this does not qualify under G1; "patent nonsense" has a very specific meaning (WP:PN) on Misplaced Pages, and it does not extend to this. One of the vandalism (G3) categories may be pressed into service—joke vandalism comes to mind. The question of whether to undelete ambiguous speedies of clearly inappropriate content has arisen before; like Sjakkalle here and DES, Tony and Splash elsewhere, I'm inclined not to request undeletes where the outcomes are extraordinarily unlikely to change, as is the case here. kd. enceph alon 14:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD. While it may be nonsense, this article did not qualify for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. --Allen3 12:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. Undelete and AfD if we really must, but warn the author that there really isn't much chance of this withstanding the AfD process. -Splash 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Undeleted and immediately nominate to AFD. I fully expect it to fail the AFD but that's a content judgment and I've been wrong before. This, however, was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way that we use that term. Rossami (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, AfD. --Monkbel 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)]]
Keep deleted. Content is ridiculous, unnotable, unencyclopaedic, crufty. Exploding Boy 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading the many responses on the condition of my article, I feel more explanation is due. I am a new contributor of Misplaced Pages, but I have been a user for years. I read the rules and while my first entry is clearly absurd, it should still be considered as knowledge. To claim such a article is unencyclopedic is incorrect if we are to use Misplaced Pages's own definition of encyclopedia: a written compendium of knowledge. Slang and slurs are both regularly included in the Misplaced Pages as as source of knowledge. As for any assertion that my article may be considered vandalism is also ludicrous. I am not attempting to ruin the integrity or deface this tome. The penis-showing game is an aspect of pop-culture that has transfered from one medium (film) to another (life). Consider "Git-R-Done" from Blue Collar TV or "Crip Walking" from west coast rap. The penis-showing game is just another example. Furthermore, it is becoming recognized by other groups, for example, facebook.com now has a group in which is dedicated to the game. The article was a work in progress, I intended to flesh out the rules, add more history, and give cultural context. Imagine my dismay when I found the article deleted within hours. Heck, even the word "crufty" is featured by Misplaced Pages, but not any major dictionary. I admit the line has to be drawn somewhere, but looking at the AfD I don't see my article breaching any of them. Thank you, again MacAllah 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ok. Contested speedies go to AFD, so undelete and list there. I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, but that's not to me to decide. Titoxd 22:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- a note for you, if you do get it back up, the game has been around since long before the movie. It's been played in the army for the last 10 years that I know of. You might also want to make the connection to puppetry of the penis.Leppy
- Recognition/notability is what's needed for an article on a subject like this to be kept -- if this article is about a notable subject, there must better example than the existence of a facebook.com group though, anyone can make one of those, regardless of how notable or non-notable the subject. --Mysidia (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
While I might not have brought this to VfU, once it is here, Undelete and list on AfD. This is clearly not a valid speedy. Indeed if this (rather repulsive, IMO) "game" has in fact become at all common (which i doubt, but people have done weirder things) and if verifiable evidence of this were to be added to the articel, it might indeed pass An AfD. Articles about things significant numbers of people do are encyclopedic. Articels about minor plot elements from moves are IMO usually not. But that is a contgent decision and should be made on AfD. DES 16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete Can I just say, I've spoken to people who claim to play it. Of course I won't be speaking to these people again, but still. -- Hijamiefans
OK, so I'd like to put my page up on the AfD, but I cannot figure out quite how to. Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but I think I am doing it correctly and just... nil. Thank you in advance. MacAllah 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- It hasn't been undelted properly yet, and should not be listed on AfD until the conclusion of this process. -Splash 00:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Crufty is a good way to put it, but more importantly, it is unencyclopaedic. Dominick 11:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and Vfd immediately - Because it did not go through the Vfd process, and appears to be a serious attempt to write an article, which might be about an encyclopedic subject. Undeleting would give the author an opportunity to fix the problems with the article, for instance, citing sources to demonstrate the importance of the subject. Also, the Vfd discussion, if the outcome was delete would at least identify the problems with the article that would need to be fixed in a rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Not encyclopedic, not informative, nonsense.--MONGO 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Vanity and unencyclopaedic. *drew 03:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this isn't AFD. What we're looking at is if a page was deleted properly and within policy. Those kinds of comments go on AFDs following undeletion. Titoxd 03:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiking off

As per above, the author contacted me asking to undelete. Keep deleted. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Not a notable phrase. KeithD (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I'm prepared to allow a little discretion on this one. We clearly have a pair of articles that are of deeply questionable value. The one above at least has a basis in fact (a movie). This one seems to have no basis at all and it is reasonable to delete this as a joke article, which per WP:VAND and CSD G3, is a speedy. The deleter should be aware, however, that the speedy criteria are not for stretching and that it is very helpful to always indicate under which of the CSDs you are deleting. It saves VfU having to guess. -Splash 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)`
Keep deleted, agree with splash. --fvw * 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, CSD G3 applies. Titoxd 22:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

October 9

Anti-Colombianism

Amazingly there are people who can believe Italians amd Pols are the object of hatred but easily believe that Colombians are much better treated and that the expression "Anti-Colombianism" is far fetched. Just see some examples from Misplaced Pages.

I can take Anti-Arabism because after all those guys are blowing themselves in the middle of the crowd, I can take Anti-Semitism because after all the Nazis, Arabs and Jews have some pending business, but Anti-Italianism and Anti-Polonism?... Hmm.. That beats me! This article should be undeleted! --Chagual 08:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted valid afd. See Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Colombianism Ryan Norton 08:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid deletion debate based on the fact that the term is a neologism. The four articles cited in this VFU nomination refer to anti-philosphies already recognized as existing and are verifiable, Anti-Colombianism is not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Valid VfD/AfD. I get 10 Google hits on this term, 7 of which are from Misplaced Pages or mirrors, 2 of which are from the same blog, and the remaining 1 uses it only in quotes. Neologism at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The only way a very clear debate such as this could be overturned by VfU is if there were some significant new evidence that the AfD editors were not in possession of at the time. That is plainly not the case here; referencing other Misplaced Pages articles does not bolster the case for this one: each article must stand on its own merits. -Splash 01:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, Sjakkalle has it exactly right. enceph alon 11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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.