Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 22:26, 17 October 2005 view sourceChristopher Parham (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users14,662 edits →Albert M. Wolters: undelete← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:06, 17 October 2005 view source Rayc (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,037 edits →Votes for undeletion Next edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:
	'''Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at ].'''		'''Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at ].'''
	</td></tr></table>		</td></tr></table>

			=== October 17 ===
			==== Timeline of golf history (1945-1999)====
			This is my first undeletion request, so let me know if I did it right. I was trying to fix a double redirect on ] and it seems to have been redirected into itself. It appears that the article was slated for a move, but got deleted in the process. It may still be out their somewhere, I just can't find it. The one with () should of been the article --] 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

	=== October 16 ===		=== October 16 ===
	====Albert M. Wolters ====		====Albert M. Wolters ====

Revision as of 23:06, 17 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 17

Timeline of golf history (1945-1999)

This is my first undeletion request, so let me know if I did it right. I was trying to fix a double redirect on Timeline of golf history 1945-1999 and it seems to have been redirected into itself. It appears that the article was slated for a move, but got deleted in the process. It may still be out their somewhere, I just can't find it. The one with () should of been the article --Rayc 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

October 16

Albert M. Wolters

I strongly object to the deletion of the Albert M. Wolters article, among other things he is a main transmitter and expainer of an important Dutch orginal analyst of the Western tradition of the philosophy of history, until now his work being among the few resources available in the English language. His work has spurred interest in the figure, and recent critical work and translation of D. H. Th. Vollenhoven's revolution in Western philosophy historiography was in significant part spurred by Wolters' writing and teaching. There's still more to come, and clues he's left in obscure works will be taken up by younger scohlars, so that Wolters is a growth thinker who should have mention and expansion in Wiki. Wolters writes academically at a hi-ly abstract and theoretical level, while he also writes more popularly to produce at last one bestseller that continues to be widely read by beginning thinkers and laity in numerous countries. Of course, he articulates a minority view, struggling to emerge from obscurity. More than reason for Wiki to undelete promptly the article on him. Further, Wiki should not devote its energies to duplicating the well-worn views and contributions of stars in academia or elsewhere. It needs to have a solid good bias in favour those who haven't become darlings of guilds and mass organizations. User: Reformatikos

I'd like to nominate Albert M. Wolters for undeletion. I have been away from Wiki for a while and was a little bemused to see that this article had been deleted.

Al Wolters is not a non-entity: he passes the google test and has published several books; including the very influential Creation Regained. Cheers, SteveBish 15:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

~~Keep deleted~~. The AfD was unanimous and very recent, and so there would need to be something overpoweringly significant that had changed between the AfD and now for this to be overturned. Nothing of that sort is mentioned here. -Splash 16:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Based on looking around, seeing that the nominator here is very possibly able to influence an AfD and User:Doc Glasgow's comments on my talk page (he was the deleting admin, btw), I'm inclined to get the impression that AfD may have gone off the rails on this one. Without wishing to view VfU as AfD in reverse, I think weak undelete and re-AfD to check whether AfD was actually working or not. -Splash 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Could an admin make the content of this temporarily viewable, please? Xoloz 16:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's not usually done for AfDs, I have to say. As long as you promise that you plan to judge the process not the article, I'll temp-undelete it. -Splash 16:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Keep Deleted This, of course, does not prejudice future expanded recreations. I agree the AfD reached a questionable conclusion, but I think it is easy enough to expand this article, avoiding any proper CSD for a new posting. If this article were so exhaustive such that it couldn't be expanded, I'd be in a quandry, because it is quite encyclopedic, in my view. There is no reason to violate process, though, when an easy alternative (of expanding and reposting) is available. Xoloz 20:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
KD for now. Perfectly valid closure—it was, in fact, unanimous. However, a request to overturn on the basis that an important article editor was unaware of the AFD may be considered. Steve may also find this section of the deletion guide helpful. enceph alon 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete Albert Wolters is an important representative of a school of christian thought. He is well published in a number of fields and the above mentioned book has been translated into a variety of languages. On what basis has he been judged "boring" and is this a rigorous enough criteria to delete a wikipedia article? Refphilosopher
- Read the AfD in my post above. Rigorous enough or not, the debate was unanimous. Note also that, for the most part, this page is not to repeat the AfD debate. See the final sentence in the yellow box above. -Splash 18:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Utterly ludicrous deletion. Despite the false claims made elsewhere in this discussion, it is the content that matters. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- The claims aren't false in the least, no matter how much you dislike them. Per the nominator's request on my talk page, I've dropped the article into User:SteveBish/Sandbox for his (and everyone elses) use. -Splash 18:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete valid process (indeed I closed it), but ridiculous result. How this happened I'll never know. This distinguished professor has a number of important books with major publishers. Unless we're going to be a bureaucracy that values process over good articles? Relist on AfD if you want - but it will certainly survive. --Doc (?) 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

- Thanks for putting the article in my sandbox. I have now edited it and added a few external links. I was the original author of the article and was unaware that it had been put up for deletion. Cheers, SteveBish 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted valid afd. Ryan Norton 19:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- As a side note, if we undelete this it sets a dangerous precedent - then VfU becomes just another AfD where we start judging everything on content, even if the content is basically the same. As for the nominator, what do we do then? If the nominator's reasoning is something we don't like we undelete it despite the rest of the discussion? This should be an open-and-shut case. Ryan Norton 19:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and re-AfD if necessary. Content should ultimately determine an article's faith, not whether a previous "process" was "valid" or not. Tupsharru 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid unanimous AfD. I have been bold and re-deleted the article until such a time as the results of this vote are concluded. User:Zoe| 00:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Looks like Tony Sidaway once again thinks he's above the process: He just created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters (second nomination). --Calton | Talk 00:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Article was deleted based on an argument that the subject is not notable, even though the article contains an assertion of notability, specifically that Wolters is an expert on the Copper Scroll. Unfortunately, this item was rather buried in the article, which is of poor quality - but that's a reason to fix it, not delete it. --Michael Snow 01:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- On a slightly tangential point, assertions are only good for avoiding speedy deletion. An article that rests on unverifiable assertions should be removed on that basis. I'm not saying that is the case in this article, mind, just on the WP:V and WP:RS point in general. -Splash 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I realize that's a speedy deletion criterion, but it illustrates the problem with the basis presented for deletion. The article was not deleted because nobody could verify Wolters' expertise, and I highly doubt that it was deleted because everyone thought such an expert is not notable. It was deleted because the article was so poorly written that nobody realized why he might be notable. --Michael Snow 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Content is indeed what matters. VfU is not "yet another AfD" -- it is the only recourse for someone to point out that an AfD was based on a false premise, or that it missed key information in the article, after the brief AfD period (during which many relevant writers and editors may not see the deletion debate). +sj + 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and the text at the top of this page makes that very clear. -Splash 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of shenanigans going on on this article. The AfD was unanimous. Tony Sidaway, entirely on hiw own without an appropriate VfU vote, undeletes the article, lists it for AfD again, and then all of a sudden, in a manner of minutes, the AfD is closed? All of this behavior is entirely inappropriate. User:Zoe| 01:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes - it is entirely out of process. Not only that, but tony has removed the AfD tag TWICE from the article. I'm not sure whether I want to delete this thing until the VfU is over, but if it is going to be kept the AfD tag STAYS - and I have half a mind to block tony if he removes it again. Ryan Norton 01:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There's some back and forth currently going on about this on WikiEN-L. · Katefan0 01:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

comment This is giving us an opertunity to see an admin only version of pure wiki deletion in action.Geni 03:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Of course, that's a point vote as it appears that only Tony Sidaway gets to decide what's a valid closure. Grotesque disrepect not only for process but for the opinions of editors and admins, disregard for any vision of Misplaced Pages that differs from his own. Egregious wikilawyering when it suits him, ignore all rules when it doesn't. This behavior is disgusting. - brenneman 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete Article is of value, and that's what counts in the end. I'd hate to see us reach a point where the inflexable application of rules keep good, encyclopedic content out. Rx StrangeLove 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted as valid process seems to be followed, and new info hasn't come to light. I think the AFD nominators use of the word "boring" was quite unfortunate, but I prefer not to open every AFD based on this. It's important the this page not turn into "AFD: round 2". I don't see new info coming to light, but if it has, then make a new article with it. --rob 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Deletion was in process, but the people making up the consensus seem to be have been mistaken since this was quite clearly a notable professor. Only in very unusual circumstances should VFU be used to overturn valid AFD debates, but this seems to be one of those rare cases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. The deletion was in process, but the people that made up the concensus were mistaken in thinking it was a vanity article. So in this case the decision should be overturned. - Mgm| 09:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, do the shenanigans ever stop? Snowspinner just posted this lovely comment to the first VfD:

This article was later undeleted, on the grounds that the AfD consensus was in error. Snowspinner 00:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not our job to determine whether consensus was in error - it is our job as admins to determine and enforce consensus. Try to have some respect for the process people. As a side note this article could have easily been given some new more varafiable info and go through the normal VfU process, but now we have this for basically no reason except to prove a point. Ryan Norton 10:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to refer to this Signpost article regarding Jimbo's endorsment of Snowspinner's declaration that he would continue undeleting an article until Jimbo or ArbCom told him to stop. It's a drastic measure and should definitely not be used lightly, and I am often guilty of favoring process over end result since breaching process tends to lead to major arguments. But in this instance, should we follow process just for the sake of following process? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of VfU should not be to overrule AfD - the second we do that is the second this becomes another AfD with a backlog to boot with every vanity band complaining about their article being deleted and it would degenerate into every admin's version of "notability", and would not reflect community consus and thus become useless. I believe VfU allows for articles to be rewritten with more varafiability to be undeleted in addition to those deleted out of process or against past consensus. What should happen here is that this stays deleted (with the second afd now a precarious process), and the nominator provides us something we determine is more varafiable then the last version, which should be easy, especially in a case like this (a lot of it reads like a nn-vain-bio currently anyway). The idea is that here we decide what the community wants, not decide for the community like some great gods up in the sky. We need to keep it procedural on VfU otherwise we start having factions and other nonsense, that's why AfD is flawed - for many subjects the rules are just plain ambigious or not well-defined. However, AfD is not our problem here - VfU works well and is not factionalized because we have a relatively strict process that works well, more or less. This should be an open-and-shut keep deleted and undelete a version with more varafiability and send that back to the community to decide. That's why when you see me give my opinion here I never try to justify the article - it is simply was the admin right or is there newer information in the article - that's it. Ryan Norton 11:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

- That's ridiculous. There very purpose of VFU is to overrule a bad deletion by AfD. If you've lost sight of that, no wonder VFU had become an irrelevancy. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Tony, the point of VFU is not to be a second AFD. This article is the exception that proves the rule, and it was going to be undeleted in all likelyhood. However, it's a bit irritating for us to be discussing something and for the discussion to be summarily thrown out by WP:IAR. My vote below is moot, since it's undeleted and it's going to stay that way, but please, in the future, don't do that again. You could have achieved the same result by bringing new information to VFU which would invalidate the AFD (which was what happened in this case!) and it would have been reverted without any flaming. Titoxd 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point and I think it would have been better to let this VFU run its course before undeleting it, after all, with a unanimous AFD the deletion was definitely not "obviously out of process". Nonetheless, there is in fact a clause in the undeletion policy allowing us to consider content somewhat: "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored)." It is rare that using that rule comes into play, and it too usually boils down to procedural questions (e.g. "AFD started but article was never tagged so the people who had it on the watchlist were never warned" or "article greatly rewritten just hours before the debate was closed"), but it might be of use when an argument is presented at VFU which addresses the concerns presented in the AFD. Now let's take a look at the AFD debate: It starts by arguing that this is a boring nn professor, we get a delete vote per nom, another delete vote saying vanity, a delete vote given without any reason, another "nn/vanity" and finally "delete for now" without reason. No addressing at all about the books which were authored and the impact he has had on the field of science he works. it is more or less a "Not notable, agree, agree, agree, agree, agree, deleted" debate. Now that someone has provided evidence of notability which for some unknown reason (probably a fluke due to too many AFD debates and too few people keeping a watch there) didn't show up on the AFD, I think it is reasonable to vote here, based in part on the content. One question which I ask myself regarding when to apply WP:IAR is: "does breaking the rule upset anyone for reasons beyond breaking the rule?" Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it simply - the nominator came here saying the process was invalid. It should be kept deleted based on that it indeed was a valid process. We should only consider content on rewritten ones or speedies. "No addressing at all about the books which were authored and the impact he has had on the field of science he works" - well, perhaps that's because the article did a poor job of it? If so then we should judge a rewritten article shows the impact he had and is thus more varafiable. Also, WP:IAR is dangerous here because it can cause VfU to become factionalized as mentioned before. And finally, ask yourself this - why are the people who wanted to delete it the first time around still wanting to delete it? If VfU addressed the objections that shouldn't happen, should it? Not only that but they are getting insulted in the process. That is very ugly and very un-admin like. Ryan Norton 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

~~Undelete~~. Although I firmly believe that VfU should be about whether or not procedure was followed, and I desperately want to avoid VfU becoming a place to reargue every single ~~VfD~~AfD discussion...I also can't see how we can check our common sense at the door. The current article is thorough and detailed, and clearly indicates notability. Sjakkalle's comments above seem to be entirely on point. We seem to have dropped the ball on this one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The whole point of being an admin is you do have to check your own personal beliefs and common sense at the door - as you wouldn't close that AfD debate with a keep, would you? I mean to a lot of people around here its common sense to both keep and delete certain articles (schools come to mind). Now imagine a VfU where every one of these that ever got deleted came here - that could very well happen if we keep doing this... Ryan Norton 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite capable of imagining that, and I'm one of those rabid deletionists that would stomp on any attempt to turn every VfU into a second bite at the apple for every article deletion. Though I've been kind of quiet on this page of late, if you look at my contributions, I support undeletion very seldom because I generally do trust the processes that we have. Nevertheless, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. I believe that the processes we have developed to handle deletion (and most everything else) are pretty solid and work fairly well—but I'm not going to blindly assume that these processes are infallible. There are reasons why we have WP:IAR, appeals to the God-King Jimbo, and other opportunities to work around red tape for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I think this article needs further review, and I'm not going to see us delete a good, detailed article about a noteworthy individual solely based on thoughtless obedience to the letter of policies that are inherently flexible. Undeletion should bounce it back to VAfD. Frankly, admins who check their common sense at the door have no place here. (While we may disagree on what constitutes 'common sense', I don't think it's unreasonable to extend/repeat the AfD discussion in this case; based on the comments so far, it's obvious that the deletion–while carried out according to process–doesn't actually represent a consensus as to what should happen to this article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The thing in all that is that at the point this was undeleted, the VfU was drifting in the direction of an undelete. It might well have produced an undelete left to its own devices. If it had, there'd have been no bad blood, no need for controversy, no need for all this mess. Patience is a virtue and should be demonstrated by admins more deliberately than most. If VfU had produced a keep-deleted result, then some action may have been appropriate at that point. There was no need to high-handedly initiate a wheel war. -Splash 16:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree with you. There was no need to prematurely undelete the article. There are few articles that we absolutely cannot do without for the five days or so that they would spend on VfU. I was arguing that we shouldn't prevent ourselves from reconsidering a decision made at AfD when we have access to more eyes and more opinions; I'm not supporting the premature-undelete-and-flame-war model that seems to be growing in popularity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete the copyvio. Dammit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Valid AFD. Article should be expanded off-line until at least it is not "substantially similar" to the deleted version and reposted, after which a history-only undel can be done. The deleted Content should be freely provided off-line to anyone working on the expansion. DES 15:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep deleted. The AFD was unanimous, and I'm voting this way mostly because of the attempts to circumvent process mentioned above. How many times do I have to write that VFU is not a second bite of the apple? The purpose of VFU is to enforce consensus, as Ryan stated above. Besides, this could have been fixed by posting a new article that satisfied the complaints in the AFD and then done a history undelete. ~~129.219.8.89 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)~~ (Got logged out while posting vote) Titoxd 17:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. See below. We don't want VFU to be a rerun of every AFD debate, but in cases where the apparent AFD "consensus" is inconsistent with the normal standards of the community, we should have recourse to reopen that debate. I believe that this is such a case. Broad community participaion in the second AFD clearly is not supporting the notion of a delete consensus. Are the shenangins involved here bad? Yes they are, but so is deciding that an AFD lacking even one complete sentence should tie the hands of the larger community which apparently supports the existence of articles such as this. Dragons flight 17:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete - since when does "due process" in AFD (with a handful of participants) trump content? I thought the point here was to write an encyclopaedia, not to enforce the rules at any cost. This whole argument is just nutty. Kudos to Tony for IAR'ing in the face of a disfunctional process! Guettarda 17:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete (or Keep Undeleted, as the article has already been undeleted.) VFU's mission is to catch deletion errors OF ALL TYPES, not just process errors. Any other interpretation is just plain wrong. This deletion was an error, probably due to lack of discussion. Items that are fully discussed on AfD will rarely see any sympathy here, so fears of VFU becoming a "second try" are completely unfounded. Un focused 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio. The present article is derived with only minor changes from the professor's personal website. As such it needs to be rewritten, or stay deleted, or get his permission. Thanks to rob for identifying the source. Dragons flight 19:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Undelete. Dragons flight 22:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Slight disagreement: I wasn't the first to find it. Also, I'm not sure it's a total copyvio. A critical piece is, but as I compare more, it seems most of the text is different. It's obviously a derived work. But, I'm not sure that constitutes a copyvio (I'm no lawyer). In fact, the copy/paste is small enough, that if it had been properly quoted and cited, it might have constituted "fair use". --rob 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- The copyright infringing material has been purged from the article and its history. And in case someone hasn't mentioned it, the article was undeleted ages ago. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
So long as the copyvio problems are eliminated, Undelete on the basis that the nominator's argument would likely have swayed the argument. Given that this person appears to meet the broad standards of notability that usually apply, there's no reason for me to believe that the debate, which centered on the non-notability of the individual, would not have been crucially swayed by the points raised above. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

October 15

Real Dayton BDSM Support Group

I nominate Real Dayton BDSM Support Group for undeletion because there are several other BDSM groups listed that have kept their links. This article is the same size as those others and has content of similar nature and interest. There is no reason for it to be deleted and no reason was listed either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.79.97 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 16, 2005 (UTC)

Undelete and AfD. Invalid speedy. The first deletion just says "nn", which I presume is a reference to CSD A7 that only applies to real people, not groups of people. The second was a redeletion per prior deletion, but G4 is clear that the orignial reason (or some other reason) must have been valid. In neither case were the CSDs applicable. Oh, and it wasn't spam, either. But I would advise the nominator that "support groups" are going to get a rough ride in AfD since they usually have little or no influence outside their local area and no media coverage, which makes verifying the facts in the article, and establishing the importance of the topic difficult. -Splash 00:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted -- BBlackmoor 03:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD. Everything that Splash said. enceph alon 05:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD This does not appear to be a valid speedy. However, i doubt this will survive AfD unless it is expanded to include more encyclopedic content and a greater indication of notability. DES 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The article has been recently recreated. The recreated version is substantially similar to the deleted versions. The recreated version has been nominated for regular deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Real Dayton BDSM Support Group. Rossami (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD invalid speedy. Ryan Norton 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Antievolutionist

I am nominating Antievolutionist for undeletion. I veiw that in the creation-evolution debate their are more than just creationists who oppose it. Not including the whole spectrum of antievolutionists makes Misplaced Pages less in depth. Misplaced Pages would be better if this article was undeleted.

The original debate was here. Canadianism 21:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted, the AFD seems valid, there were no irregularities in the process, and this page is about process, not content. One question: what is the difference between a creationist and an antievolutionist? Titoxd 21:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted as per Titoxd. --Allen3 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted likewise. if someone is an anti-evolutionist, they are likley supporting creationisim. there is really no other side to this debate --Chickendude 23:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The valid VfD's main concern was that the word is a neologism. That fact doesn't appear to have been mitigated since mid-July, and no evidence is offered here that it might have been. -Splash 00:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted with the exception of the IP vote which most likely discounted by the closing admin anyway all the votes were to delete and there did not appear to be any irregularities in the voting process. Jtkiefer ----- 01:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted -- BBlackmoor 03:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete Would make Misplaced Pages more informative. Their are more than just Christian-Jewish Creationists who oppose evolution, there are also Realians. Canadianism 04:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
keep deleted valid AfD. When and if anyone can verifiably demonstrate widespread use of this term, create an articel that describes cites such use, and it will probably survive an AfD, or not even be nominated for one. DES 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Neologism and no info that can't be included in Evolutionary theory or evolutionist. There's no need to fragment that discussion over the wiki with stubs. - Mgm| 10:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

October 14

Yumeni Kobo

I just wrote an article on the Yumeni Kobo http://ballz.ababa.net/uninvited/dream.htm and it got deleted, without a VfD and without anyone saying why. Why was it deleted? A useful article on this recent invention that some Japanese person claims you can use to control your dreams and pick what you dream about should be brought back to this encyclopedia. 64.200.124.189 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Undelete and AfD. There's not a CSD that covers dream-making machines, that I'm aware of. The article was intelligible, so not patent nonsense and doesn't read like pure spam. Though it's a mere one sentence with a link (i.e. virtually identical to the nomination statement here), so at a guess that's why it was speedied, presumably per WP:CSD#A3. -Splash 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD. Such an article could have merit and shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Paul Cyr 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD Agree with above. -- BBlackmoor 04:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete and AfD. However the article should cite sources other than the manufactureer's claims, or it may well not survive AfD. DES 06:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This article has subsequently been recreated by the same anon author. The anon author has also opened a regular deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yumeni Kobo. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

InuYasha Galaxy

The reasons for deletion was because it lacked notability, but that is NOT a valid reason for deletion. Here is the VfD. There are plenty of other MUDs with their own page. --136.150.200.99 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Valid afd. Notability is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. If you think the articles in Category:MU* games are non-notable also, feel free to nominate them. I'll probably agree. —Cryptic (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
(Edit confict with Cryptic) Keep deleted, valid VfD. Lack of notability is a valid criterion for deletion, and the fact that there's other MUDs is irrelevant. Articles fall on their own merits, and just by themselves. Titoxd 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - Valid afd - Tεx τ urε 16:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted perfectly valid VfD, and notability is a perfectly valid reason for a delte vote, IMO. DES 17:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted valid afd. Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion. Xoloz 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- What are you all talking about? "There is currently no official policy on notability." --69.204.183.132 18:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Article deletion is subjective, editors do not have to cite an official policy in order for their opinion to count on AFD. Rhobite 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    - That makes no sense. I could vote to delete a page because I don't like it if that were true. --69.204.183.132 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      - That would only be true if one were a person of highly unsound judgment. Most of us can distinguish between whether something is notable, and whether we like it or not. (In my case, for example, I concede the high notability of George W. Bush, notwithstanding my dislike of him.) Xoloz 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Valid VfD. No reason for undeletion given. Nominator, please note the following at the top of this page: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process, not content." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is not valid. "Misplaced Pages is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria."
  - "Misplaced Pages is not paper" is a content argument. You are responding to a comment saying that you must make an argument that the debate was improperly closed. What is your argument regarding the process of its closure? (Not the reasons given by voters.) - Tεx τ urε 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. Valid AfD. While Misplaced Pages is not paper, the same policy also states that Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine and not an indiscriminate collection of information. No reason has been given to indicate that these other two policy portions do not apply. --Allen3 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
withdraw this undelete request That vote is so old you shouldn't be going through this undelete process. Just create the page again. It is has been long enough. All this is doing is drawing attention and possible opposition to page, and the the voting standard is higher, than if you created and someone bothered to put in a VfD.--Silverback 03:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted -- BBlackmoor 04:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. What Cryptic said. enceph alon 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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)
Keep Deleted Valid AfD -- BBlackmoor 04:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Undelete per nominator. Whether the AfD was "valid" or not is irrelevant in this case. We're discussing whether the presence or absence of an article improves Misplaced Pages or not. Process should be respected, but end product of an encyclopedia is the absolute measure for what the proper action is at this time, or any other. VFU is for catching occasional AfD mistakes of ALL KINDS, not just process errors. Unfocused 17:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- What "error" was made here? A dicdef was transwikied per the discussion carried out in the AfD. No content was lost; it just moved. WP:WINAD, but Wiktionary certainly is, and that's where such content belongs. If Lethe wants to write an encyclopedic article on Digestif, s/he's welcome to do so; nothing needs to be undeleted, as the former contents of Digestif are available at wikt:transwiki:Digestif. android79 17:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, but anyone should feel free to write a good encyclopedia article on this topic (instead of a dicdef). Rhobite 17:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

October 13

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)
Keep deleted. Initial version removed by a valid SfD. The new version shows no significant difference from the initial, so the speedy using criteria G4 was also valid. --Allen3 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, nothing was wrong with the SfD and it is the done thing, per CSD G4 to remove recreations of deleted content, or the deletion processes would be largely meaningless. Also, before creating new stub types, WP:WSS requests that you call by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, where I imagine the author would have been advised against making this new template. -Splash 17:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted BlankVerse ∅ 17:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep delete, valid SFD, and concur with Grutness on the SFD anyway. --Phroziac 01:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Temp undelete. SfD had minimal participation and I don't see why we shouldn't have mountain and river stubs when we'v also got film, religion and author stubs. A Mountain stub template would make expanding mountain stubs easier. With geo-stub tags finding mountain stubs isn't nearly as possible. Previous SfD said it was malformed and not suggested through the regular process, which both could've been fixed. - Mgm| 10:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- For how long should we undelete it? -Splash 16:05, 16 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)
Keep Deleted -- BBlackmoor 04:08, 16 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. 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. 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)

<Personal attack removed> 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)
- Other voters should examine the evidence themselves.--Silverback 06:51, 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. 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)
        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. --Silverback 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

| Talk 11:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

- - - - I had already apologized to Dmcdevit before you came along. --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)
Keep deleted. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:21, 15 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)

These particular ones are not personal attacks, and it is a personal attack on me to label them as personal attacks, within my comments

I will not object however, to those comments that I have apologized for in regard to User:Dmcdevit begin so treated, although I felt that leaving them in for all to see, was a more proper punishment for me. I am truly sorry about those.
"You abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers"

If this is a personal attack then no one can bring someone before the ARBCOM without making a personal attack. 172 was brought into arbitration twice for abuse of admin powers, and escaped an actual decision the second time by pretending to leave wikipedia.

"But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action"

This is the type of accusation I would make about 172s behavior in an ARBCOM proceding. It is a personal attack on me to label a personal attack, just because it is in that setting, and not this one. His deletion of the vote closing was deceptive because it was made after the apparent resolution of the issue when participants would assume it was over and direct their attention elsewhere.

I think the other ones regarding 172 are similarly defensible. But I won't rehash them here. But I do think the personal attacks against me within my comments should be removed.--Silverback 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Folks, if you want to fight, file an RFAr. This isn't the place for flaming and baiting. Titoxd 04:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid an RFAr. There is no guarantee 172 would stick around for it.--Silverback 05:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Silverback, the only reason I put those notes about removing PAs inside your comments was to preserve the integrity of your posts as much as possible. I'm against silently and unilaterally modifying people's signed comments and thereby giving a wrong idea of what they actually wrote. But since you've indicated you prefer it, I've now removed my insertions (+ your "disputed" tags). I realize I'm creating a new problem by making some of 172's replies look irrelevant (such as: "Administrators, consider the above comments along with the policy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks"), but I hope he'll excuse me, and either reinsert my "removal" comments if he finds them necessary in justice to himself, or alternatively remove some of his own words. Silverback, for the record, I'm amazed and depressed to see you calling stuff like this "defensible" (scroll all the way down!) rather than apologizing for it. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. A little cleanup: I've removed some of 172's no longer relevant replies, and also a little back-and-forth from another user that arose from them. If anybody objects, just put it back. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted -- BBlackmoor 04:09, 16 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)

Keep Deleted agree with Mysidia -- BBlackmoor 04:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

How close is this to a decision, and how will I know? If it is relisted, I will have to do some work on it to avoid another deletion, and in that case, I'll need access to the original text (don't have it saved anywhere). I'd like to be more selective with some of the trivial information, look at certain spots where I might have been too POV, and certainly insert these external links as source citations. On the comments above by Mysidia, et al., "game show contestants," is a bit of a simplistic categorization, as "Survivor" is generally acknowledged to be more than just a game show. The contestants in the first few seasons (and Ms. Dennis was runner-up of the fourth) became widely known and recognizable faces. That has waned of late, since there have been so many editions. But in 2002, the show was still relatively new, and Ms. Dennis was a highly recognized figure, particularly in her home state. She popularized a euphemistic exclamation and had a spot on as a TV reporter for a while. I checked the Deseret News article on the "morning after" the final episode of that edition, and the article was on the front page. At the time, she ranked up there with the Osmonds and Orrin Hatch for recognizability and familiarity in the state of Utah. In the context of the show itself, her importance may lie in the pivotal role she played in what was (up to that point) the most significant power shift on any season of the show. Anyway, if it is reposted, will I have access to the original text to edit and bring it closer to the wikipedia standard?

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.