Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RaHa (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 30 November 2005 (Robert of Basevorn deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Votes

I think somewhere at the top of the page we should describe standardized wording for votes, particularly given that the rather contradictory verbs endorse (the deletion) and oppose (the undeletion request) amount to the same thing. Perhaps stick with, undelete and keep deleted. Marskell 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is already a yellow box describing precisely that. In the change to Deletion review, the notion of reviewing a not-delete debate was introduced, and the old wording doesn't really fit that. -Splash 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes. To qualify then, we should follow the wording as presented. (And perhaps we should tidy the top of the page). Marskell 04:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Archived to history

(i.e. deleted)
If I trimmed any current threads, a firm spanking is always welcome. - brenneman 06:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert of Basevorn deletion

Please see, for context: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_of_basevorn

This article was marked for deletion on the basis that it was "original research," and should be removed "unless someone can be bothered to take a scythe to it and trim it down to a proper article".

It wasn't really original research, any more than a standard encyclopedia article is, just a matter of digging up and collating of facts, nothing "original". But it was not sufficiently documented, so it may have looked like unsupported speculation or something of that sort.

It was, however, a bit turgid, and did not read like a web-based encyclopedia entry. But the author (my student; that's how I know) then in fact did trim it into a more appropriate shape.

jfg284, who had supported the deletion, saw these changes and commented: "The author has cited sources, making it not really original research any more, and improved formatting to make it read less like a paper. It looks like he was bothered to take that scythe and trim it. Still not sure if it fits relevancy, because 14th centruy isn't so much my field, per se. Would vote keep other than this relevancy problem, now."

I can assure you of the relevancy. There were three major strains of rhetoric in the middle ages (and rhetoric was a Big Deal back then, one of the seven liberal arts that constituted the educational curriculum), and Basevorn was one of the most significant figures in one of those strains. Perhaps the author could add something more explicit about the Basevorn's relevance?

Since the formatting fits your requirements, and the relevance is high, can this decision be reversed?