Misplaced Pages

This redirect was listed on RfD by admin Bearcat and immediately speedy deleted by the same. After some deep thought I have decided to bring this up since Misplaced Pages is not censored. I understand that "fag" is a derogatory term, but we have a redirect for List of Nazis List of nazis. I could potentially use the mentioned deletion as a precedent to delete List of Nazis List of nazis on the grounds that I find the term Nazis offensive. It should be noted that List of fags was deleted without debate. Qarnos 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not list it on RFD; it was listed by User:Dave6. Secondly, Misplaced Pages does have precedent for offensive terms in an article or category name being speedy deleted. Third, "Misplaced Pages is not censored" applies to sensitive material that is directly relevant to the content of the article, not to non-contextual use of derogatory terms for social groups — this would be the equivalent of having "List of n*ggers" as a redirect to List of African Americans, which needless to say we certainly don't have (and which would also get speedied on sight if somebody tried it). And fourth, you might want to consider coming up with an analogy that isn't a redlink — let's just say it doesn't really help your argument to claim that we have an offensive redirect that we don't actually have. Oh: and SNOWBALL, for good measure. Bearcat 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of apologies are in order from me - first, you are correct. Dave6 listed the redirect - I mis-read the proposal. Also, sorry about the redlink - wrong capitalization by myself. It has been corrected. Finally, there may very well be a precedent for offensive terms being speedied - but you mentioned in your deletion notice that in is not WP policy, which made me think. I have no problem with this page being deleted - but I think discussion is not a bad idea. -- Qarnos

I will also add, after reading your edited response, that I don't have an "argument" here. I listed the redirect here because I was concerned there may have been a knee-jerk reaction causing the speedy delete. Getting angry isn't going to solve anything. -- Qarnos 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Puff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please review this afd. The keep votes came with the reason that it is a major charachter but, even if that was true, according to Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) even major characters should be kept within the main article, and only given a separate article if "encyclopedic treatment" can be extended to it, which the article had none of. But it was speedily kept. I don't understand what happened. 650l2520 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. This is why there's a rule against non-admins speedy keeping stuff, people. There is no reason whatsoever to close this as a speedy keep. Oh, and either way, "the main page is getting too big" is not a valid reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted, especially an unsourced one. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Appears to have been speedy closed by non-admin against process (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions). No explanation given and no obvious reason for speedy keep after 5 hour listing. Bwithh 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, do it speedily if possible. This is a clear process violation, and there's no chance for any other result from this DRV, so speedy per WP:SNOW. — coelacan talk — 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. AfD closed with no delete vote, clear consensus to keep. "the main page is getting too big" is a perfectly usable argument to keep an article, please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Misplaced Pages. Lack of references is an invalid reason to delete an article. Anyway, the article now properly cites its source, added by User:AMK152. Ultimately, I take the view that reviewing this AfD isn't needed PeaceNT 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious relist, speedy closures aren't useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SanDisk Sansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Page was mistakenly deleted instead of Sandisk Sansa e260, which is now a redirect to the deleted page. Take note of the fact that the deletion log does not correspond to the article that was actually deleted Alethiareg 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, I'm going to tag the other for speedy. An article under a different name is still the same article, and the AfD is still applicable. -Amark moo! 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Argh. So it turns out that this is a seperate article. In that case, speedy undelete, but someone should really AfD it. -Amark moo! 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• If it was a procedural error on my part, please feel free to undo my actions. I am on a semi wiki break with very limited time. If there is anything that I need to answer or any questions directly regarding this, please let me know and I will try to answer as quickly as possible. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  I had a few minutes so I looked into this. It appears that sometime after the AFD started, User:Veesicle was BOLD and changed the article to a redirect]. When I closed the AFD, I made the mistake of not noticing the redirect and deleted the artice to be merged into. As a result of this investigation, I will undelete SanDisk Sansa as it has not undergone an afd and shows no cause for deletion. For the record, the afd in question is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandisk Sansa e260. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)