Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for deletion review of Klerck

Why was the article for klerck deleted? I see no valid reason. --Fragasm 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You must have missed the second AfD, found here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess then I am asking for another review. If someone can keep nominating a page for deletion until people vote to do it then surely I can continue to request that it be brought back ad infinitum. Fragasm 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While I voted keep for the second AfD, deletion review is a different breed from AfD. If you nominate an article for DRV, it has to be for a valid reason, such as the AfD not following proper process, or some new information that wasn't presenteed in the AfD. Repeatedly nominating an article for DRV with no new information is grounds for that nomination to be speedy-closed without further consideration, so you'd really be creating extra work for just you and the DRV closer without any payoff. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, in numerous no votes on the second AfD I see reasons for deletion being no obituary notices found for Kevin (Klerck) Ealy. How about [1] or [2] stemming from [3]? And how can The Two Towers Petition be declared not notable when it made world news? Thousands of sites were upset about this petition and organized grass roots campaigns to stop the madness and urge Peter Jackson to keep the name Two Towers. I'd say a majority of the web was trolled by this single event. For the originator of the Two Towers Petition alone I suggest this be reviewed and Klerck should be restored. If nothing else remove all reference of him other than he came up with the most successful troll of all time. But he did exist and he did create the Two Towers Petition. Isn't the goal of Wikipedia to contain the sum of all human knowledge? Because a few elitists at Wikipedia claim to have no knowledge of this person we erase it from Wikipedia? I know of no God but do I demand deletion of the entry on God? Silliness abounds here sometimes. Also I believe the second AfD was entirely an attempt at disruption that succeeded apparently. The question of the legalities of the second AfD were questioned by many responders. By the way this all stems from a paper I was attempting to write in regards to internet culture. I was dumbfounded that I retrieved answers regarding this most famous petition and it's originator not from Wikipedia but from others sources. It had already been deleted from Wikipedia. I cannot consider this an encyclopedia if I cannot do research here on known subjects. Fragasm 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The information you present was already in the article when it was voted on in AfD, so it doesn't exactly qualify as new information not previously presented in the AfD. As someone who voted keep, I definitely think Klerck was notable enough and I found the article to be interesting. But as I said, DRV is a review of process. I think the AfD was validly closed, even if the result wasn't what I'd hoped it would be. Yes, I would like there to be a smoking gun that would make people vote to overturn the AfD closure and keep the article. But simply repeating information that was already in the article when it was AfDed (links to the obituaries were in the article), presenting the "sum of all human knowledge" argument, and saying how deleting the article is "silly" won't get people to vote Overturn. You need to find concrete information that wasn't previously in the article when it was deleted, information that would satisfy the notability requirements. If you do that, I'd vote overturn. If you don't, I'd vote to endorse deletion, even speaking as someone who voted keep and still believes the subject of the article is notable enough. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are references to Klerck in the Page Widening the Two Towers and Shacknews. Should perhaps these articles remove references to Klerck since the claim is that he is not notable? Why are we noteing people in articles who are not notable? I apologize for the time I am taking on this subject but I feel very strongly that the entire AfD process on this article was irregular and possibly the result of a troll. I just don't understand how we can find him notable enough to discuss him in other articles, yet delete the page that it linked to. Something is wrong with the process, just the fact that it took two AfDs ought to put suspicion in someone's mind. Fragasm 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are talking about stuff that was already in the article when it was nominated for AfD, so it was considered. You can nominate it for DRV if you wish, but the AfD was fairly overwhelming, so I think the DRV will not succeed. You are free to try, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

transclusion pages

A big thank you for the (relatively) new transcluded subpages. I'd not brought something here in awhile, and needed some history undeleted. The ability to watch the subpage and know when things were done without the previous huge amount of noise was a much better experience than a few months ago! Good job.

And there appears to be a bit of cleverness about preloading new day pages that I'll try to figure out for the daily CfD and elsewhere. Thanks again!

--William Allen Simpson 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rehane_Abrahams on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rehane_Abrahams. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. She is an important South African actress! Ethnopunk 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on it... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's been undeleted, and an AfD process will now begin. Follow the link to the discusison from the article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate due process.Ethnopunk 11:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Transcluding individual DRV debates

This page has a gargantuan history, and is unwatchable if you're only following one discussion. We ought to start transcluding individual debates, quite like AfD. Has this been proposed before? It makes eminent sense. I'll go start a discussion at WP:AN - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the daily logs are already being transcluded. I don't think there are enough entries to warrant having a subpage for each and every review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Enough for a /log/ format? — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's already using a log format. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Could I really nicely suggest that everyont read the discussions on this very page about this very topic so that we may avoid covering old ground? - brenneman {L} 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand, is why we have both per-day pages *and* still have each closed debate being removed (like this). I thought the idea of per-day pages is we would leave discussion on the page (marking it closed). What purpose is a page like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 30 which is blank? I've read and understand reasons for either approach, but don't recall reasons for doing both, at the same time. Sorry if I missed it. --Rob 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything is still in the history, I guess. In some circumstances we've been asked to blank old AfDs and DRvs because they were showing up in google. I'd be happy with them being closed and remain translcuded as long as the template was a shrinky-one and not in a repulsive colour. - brenneman {L} 05:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Shrinky stuff (I guess you mean show/hide buttons, NavHead, NavFrame) only works in monobook and its children, so that really isn't an option. Kotepho 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I just meant "span style ="font-size:75%;". Sorry I was vauge. - brenneman {L} 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Content review section

I've hacked around this text a bit, for the benefit of requesting editors and the undeleting admins, and tightened it severely. The key point is to make access to uncontroversial deleted text (not copyvios, libel, privacy violations, etc) as simple as possible. I suggest keeping the two actioned requests there for the moment as examples of how to do it, or at least how I do it - David Gerard 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds uncontroversial, so I don't have a problem with it. The only problems would be if there is a request to restore vandalism or some other sort of crap. What do we do with those? Titoxd(?!?) 19:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Kinston Indians

Fyi to admins: This article appears to have been successfully nominated for deletion and then underwent a deletion review process in which all the commentators endorsed the deletion. The deletion review was closed on June 25, 2006 but the article seems to have been restored, not deleted. Bwithh 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The AfD was poorly titled. The nomination was for a number of individual articles for individual Class A players on the team, most of them barely stubs. We maintain articles on all minor league teams. Fan-1967 20:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just coming to say that. The AFD and the DRV dealt with the players, and never the team. Titoxd(?!?) 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MOVED TO ITS PROPER PAGE AT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t , PLEASE MAKE ALL SUBSEQUENT EDITS THERE, NOT HERE. cacophony 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t have/had a large impact on the gaming community, ranging from Counter Strike to Warcraft. Though other internet organisations intent on annoying people, such as the gnaa, have been allowed to exist, the myg0t article was given a Speedy Deletion which many claimed was the result of a baised admins decision. Whether or not this is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the article in relation to gaming and the internet community surroudnoing myg0t. They had an impact, were well known about, had a forum with over 50,000 users and were had a large effect on the gaming community. The myg0t article deserves to be recreated.--Nayl 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Now let's see. There was a vote to delete in August, 2004. It got recreated, then there was another deletion in March, 2005. Then again in May, 2006. Then that deletion was reviewed. Consistent result every time: Delete and keep it deleted. Fan-1967 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The final deletion when the article was deleted and protected was extremely controversial. Why should an article such as Leeroy Jenkins, a WoW fad that died out ages ago be allowed to remain and yet an article on a gaming group that has had a huge effect on the gaming community is deleted? Damn. We better go delete the article on the Nazis because they were just some group in history that pissed a bunch of people off. --Nayl 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If myg0t gets mentioned on Jeopardy, you might have an argument. EVula 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And yet, Leeroy Jenkins gets over three times as many google hits as myg0t. Odd, isn't it? Fan-1967 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Every case is unique. GNAA and myg0t are certainly not identical. Fan-1967 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted AfDed three times, DRVed at once. Deleted every time. Extremely strong consensus certainly exists not to have this article. I would suggest not requesting review again unless substantial new information arises. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore It seems to me that when an article is restored year after year that there is obviously something more to it. GNAA might get 265,000 google links but gnaa -niger -nigger -gay gets 205,000 so the real GNAA hits are much less ("gay nigger association of america" gets 12,000) wheras myg0t (a unigue name that can only mean one thing) gets 71,000. One look at alexa shows that the main sites of both had comparable traffic (up until myg0t was shutdown for unknown reasons). They are notable and need an article, if for anything to explain what they are to their victims. I found about GNAA and Last Measure here. Shouldn't I have a way to find out about myg0t and sporkeh from something other than a newgrounds flash?

--68.40.0.189 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore As per all the previous arguments;
  • notable: myg0t has been mentioned in 3 international publications; PC Zone, PC Format, and Rolling Stone.
  • Article was speedily deleted with no CSD
  • Article is a recurring canidate for deletion, as per WP:DP, as the article was nominated for AfD no more than a few months after it passed DrV.
  • Also WP:DP states, "repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article."
  • AfD procedures not followed the last time: because the article was deleted without any prior notice up until a few hours before the deletion, because of the questionable intent of the administrator (deletion reason was "sayonara"), because the AfD was closed prematurely, preventing anybody from voicing their dissent, because a voided AfD would thus void the subsequent DrV, article should be restored, and if an AfD is necessary, it should be conducted properly.
  • Also, why is this in Wikipedia Talk? Shouldn't it be on the project page? Reguardless, my reguards, cacophony 05:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FA template for deletion please

Since there is no need for classification of articles or for any review (which I doubt seeing the number of articles written about the fact that we do not review the articles) then the {{Template:Featured article}} should be removed too. Lincher 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The TFD for that one disagreed on that. The point there was that FA was such a strongly-established part of Wikipedia's quality system that it deserves special recognition, but that no other metatemplates should use it. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Concern over a closing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry was recently closed, with the deleting admin citing policy as the reason for its deletion; however, a closer inspection of the vote reveals that the number of Keeps (including those who voted merge, as that is a form of keeping) tallies up to 15, while those who voted delete only recieved 14 votes. As I understand it the AFD process is suppose to gain a consensus for deletion, but in this case the consensus would either be to close to call, or would be in favor of keeping and/or merging. Should this be reviewed? TomStar81 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The decision to delete (or keep) a topic isn't merely a tally of votes, but the quality of the arguments. To some extent, it also has to do with the level of contribution of the members; the argument of someone with 3k+ edits for "delete" will have more weight than a 4-edit person arguing for "keep". EVula 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the order of evaluation be first criteria and policy, (if there is a mass consensus of people voting to keep a copyvio article, it still gets deleted) then consensus, then strength of arguments, and only after that, if at all, who is arguing what position? All having 3,000 edits does is prove that you aren't a single-purpose account. If a 500 edit member and a 5,000 edit member were in dispute, I'd certainly hope that people wouldn't conclude the 5,000 edit member held precedence! Also, I think "merge" is a form of delete, not keep.--tjstrf 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I did a really shitty job of describing the process because I was trying to keep it very short and concise. Everyone else seems to have made up for my lacking, though. :) For the record, I was talking about just single-purpose accounts vs. actual "real" contributors, not in other situations. EVula 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any admin ever considers edit counts of 500 vs 3,000. Previous edit counts become important when they're very small, like single digits, or zero. Fan-1967 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two components to an XfD discussion. First is the gathering of facts, then there is the consideration of how those facts realte to policy and practice. Anyone can contribute facts, of course. Even very new editors can reference unambigious policy statements, but when it comes to more nuanced or complex decisions, more weight is not so much given to experianced editors as that they are often able to contruct more coherent and durable arguments. If it comes down to pure opinon ("keep because I like it" vs. "delete becuase I hate it") then all animals should be treated equal, with none more equal than others. To restate, the hierarchy is fact:policy:opinion. It's only in the middle that "edit count" should ever come into it. - brenneman {L} 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So, to recap: This is not a valid deletion review case because consensus is second to a policy or guideline. Although numerically both sides were roughly equal the closing admin was in the right to delete the article. TomStar81 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically, there's no such thing as an invalid DRV case. Regardless, one would hope that the overwhelming notability consensuses (consensi) would trump the somewhat falliable AfD discussion in many cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding those header thingys

I like how discussion is now put under individual days (like Log/2006_July_10), but I notice that there isn't that cool navigation thingy at the top of those pages. Like on the TFD page for July 10, it shows "July 9" and "July 11" at the top of the page - could those be added for DRV? They appear automatically added to me for TFD... Hbdragon88 07:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into this. Shouldn't be too hard with the day-1 and day+1 templates. Kotepho 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I got it. Kotepho 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Page mess

I cannot figure out what is causing some dates to list twice. While trying to correct the error, I may have exerbated it. So I'll stop trying for now. --Ezeu 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK now, except July 13 and 14 are on the same subpage. --Ezeu 09:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

THE IMDB

WHY WAS IT DELETED??????

IT ISNT THE SAME AS IMDB = www.imdb.com it is: THE IMDB = www.theimdb.tk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybondsingh (talk • contribs)

It was deleted because it's a totally non-notable message board that was only created in May this year. Also seeing as your user name is the same as the person who was reported as having founded the message board it also counts as self-promotion and spam. -- Francs2000 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't exist. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, it does exist. I didn't realize this because Sunnybondsingh posted the wrong link to his own message board. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason it was deleted is Sunnybondsingh has posted to the wrong links. However, This article was notable. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It was notable? You are talking about this website: "Total Posts: 875 Total Members: 39"??? Fan-1967 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Deleted - 39/6000000000000 is certainly not a notable amount --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are these things being closed any more?

There are discussions over two weeks old still on the page ... just FYI ... BigDT 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because the oldest two are reviews on actions that the regular DRV closer (Xoloz) made. I'd close these myself, but then I also was a fairly active contributor to those conversations. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok ... I see ... I didn't notice that Xoloz was the original deleter. Looking at them, the deletion of Chinese Pig has been endorsed overwhelmingly and closing that one would probably be non-controversial, but I respect your decision to stay out of it as an involved user and wish more administrators would follow your example of avoiding any possible appearance of abuse.BigDT 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I just closed the last of the backlog. — xaosflux Talk 04:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking closes

We've sort of taken a half-way measure here, as discussed *points up* above: Having logs but blanking them. I think I'd prefer to use the templates, although I hate the current color scheme. Of course, I seem to have quit doing these closes, so feel free to ignore me. - brenneman {L} 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a mess. Is there any need to continue to have an old discussion on the main page? I think any closing template should noinclude the section, that way we can keep the debates--just not on the main page. As it is now, if you don't close all of the debates on a page at once, it is a pain to go back and unblank it, but blanking them (so they are not on the main page still) seems to be the perferred MO. I don't abhor the closing templates, but they are rather garish--however, I do not have any suggestions for a good colour scheme. Is there any particular reason all/most of them are different colours anyways? Kotepho 04:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aye, good thinking. I don't mind the "noinclude" idea as opposed to a small font as I suggested earlier. And I'd support a change to a consistant color. How bold do you feel? - brenneman {L} 04:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it more... blanking:
  • Pro: Easy as pie, ^A del and it is gone, hard to screw up
  • Con: You have to link to history and/or read from diffs
  • Neutral: Not indexed by search engines, which is a pro and a con?
Headers
  • Pro: Can link to the page/section, don't have to read the diff or load another page after the link (but we could start linking to the version before and not the diff (with a section), but then you don't have the result there if it is in the edit summary)
  • Con: More typing, sure you can use a script, but some people don't like them (scripts)
  • Con: Easier to screw up
  • Con: The headers leak into the next section when section editing (if the top is placed above the section). This confuses people on rfd a lot.
If we are going to have headers, it would be nice if they weren't 15 lines long or just not substed if they are going to be long. 3 debates a day, 356 days in a year, we aren't really talking about a huge amount of tranclusions. If the header is going to noinclude the debate, it would probably have to be substed though so a nasty hack (<includeonly> <no</includeonly><includeonly>include>) allows it to work. Kotepho 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When I blank, I always include a link to the final diff in the result line. That's enough of a record, in my view. I really dislike the idea of closing templates (and daily logs too.) DRV is often enough just a through-stop in deciding whether to discuss a matter somewhere else -- those types of decisions are simple, majority rules things, and really don't need the formality of xfD closures. I'd support subpages (and templates) for especially complex cases (eg. The Game, or my close Template:User Christian), but those are rare. Xoloz 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's compelling coming from the person who does most of the closes. If there were a note on the page when the last one is blanked expalaining that there are contents in history, perhaps? To avoid confusing the unwary. - brenneman {L} 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • To avoid accidental deletion, or interested people returning to the log, or both? I guess a disclaimer, "After closure, all results are listed in the DRV "Recently Concluded" section, together with a link to the closed debate" could be a standard header in each daily log, or at the top of the DRV page. Does that address the concern? Xoloz 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm confused as to why we still blank the log pages, too, but I don't have much experience with DRV. If you're trying to avoid the instruction creep of yet another set of header/footer templates, that seems reasonable, but a link/transclusion of the DRV footer report might help, yes. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      I've added the following to one day's listing:
      <noinclude>
      Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)
      </noinclude>
      But looking at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics I don't see how to make it automagic. I am, however ,woefully ignorant in the arcane science.
      brenneman {L} 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      You have to edit Wikipedia:Deletion review/New day. Kotepho 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't murder the closure process by making the poor sods of closers wrap them in the stupid lovely closure templates used elsewhere. On pages like this it just makes life massively more diffciult than it needs to be, primarily so that we can have yet another stupid lovely coloured background around debates. -Splash - tk 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's much better to be blanking them because we've had a good chat about it and still want to though, isn't it? I'm happy with the tweaks, and thank Kotepho and Deathphoenix for the black arts they have performed. - brenneman {L} 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite follow what you mean, but in any case, no, I do not think that adding clicks, copies and pastes to a click, copy, paste free process is much better than anything. It beserked the closure process at TfD so much I basically refuse to do it now, and, whilst I got a bit bored of closing things here, I imagine it'd do the same to at least some current and future closers. Precisely what the black arts have done, I cannot work out. -Splash - tk 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to be a clear as possible.
  • I created the first "recently concluded" page due to complaints about finding old DRvs. Closing was still simple blanking on the page, but this added an extra requirement to copy/past some information, true. I think that general agreement was that it was a good thing, but I could be just making that up.
  • I created subpaging under great duress. I don't like the extra complexity, and yes I too hav nearly stopped closing DRvs since then. But the was consensus to do so, I felt. I groused loudly about the extra complexity, and in particular was (and still am) concerned about impact on inexperianced users.
  • Blanking of old discussions was continued, and not much talking was done about it. It kept the main page clean, but was at odds with normal method we use in subpaging. My main concern was that if someone inexperianced tried to look at the review of their pet article, they'd see a blank page in the log. The permalink is in the closing usually, but people are easily confused.
  • I'm happy now that this possible confusion has been resolved via what is (to me) some fancy coding. Closing a discussion is "blank+copy link from history+edit log of logs" but the main page is kept clear and we've eliminated some potential problems. I prefer doing things because it's been discussed to just doing them because *shrug* "that's just how we do it."
brenneman {L} 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, I am only a moderate descriptivist, but if *shrug* that's just how we do it, then that's probably because that was the most natural way for someone to pick up a tedious job and, well, just do it. It's not so easy as you describe either, since the provision of a "review" link requires repeatedly refreshing the history to get the new links each and every time. The argumetns for not wrapping this page up in techno-magic are as strong as they always were: specifically that a good number of the nominators here are totally clueless newbies. Highly techno-wizard users having a preference for syntactical elegance should not have dismissed such editors in the way that they have, particularly in the total absence of a bot to do the jobs for us. In any case, my original message was a plea to avoid the temptation to impose pastel-coloured boxes on this page. If that happens, probably I will summarily delete them unless someone can justify them in minute and painstaking detail that is proportional to the additional inconvenience caused by their introduction. -Splash - tk 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Am I just uneducated? I've never heard the word "precis" in my life. I looked it up and according to wiktionary:précis, a precis is "A concise or abridged statement or view." Is this a word that most people are going to know? Maybe a better word could be used? BigDT 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I've probably only heard the word "precis" 3 times before, and then only in books regarding the early history of New England. Just say "full version" or something. You shouldn't have to read about arcane legal tradition to understand the DRV process. You do get points for good vocabulary though. --tjstrf 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You know what to do, I'll wager. -Splash - tk 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This regards:

This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent recreation. If you created an article under this title previously, it has been deleted. For possible reasons, consult the criteria for speedy deletion, or miscellany for deletion or this page's entry on miscellany for deletion. An explanation might also appear in the deletion log. Recreation can be discussed on the talk page or at Deletion Review. Further information may be available by checking the protection log and contacting the administrator who protected the page. Administrators may view the page history and content at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Racism.

Category: Protected deleted pages


I do not comprehend which comment I am permitted to place where.

Your policies do seem convoluted|confusing to me.

I wrote a page, only once. Other than screenname-related pages, I've created exactly one,

to my recollection.

You've deleted it: w/ no appeal, no historylog.

Although I sort-of would like to revive it, restart it,...

What I actually want to know is where to apply & discuss to access the historylog. Due to my [above] confusion, I do not comprehend how to get to discuss the historylog.

What's in there?? Some sort of "national-security"?? Why should that be blocked??

As I've said, I've only created one.

No one suggested edits.

No one suggested renaming,

nor an alternate section.

Gone.

Please, where can I apply f/ the historylog??

Hopiakuta 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Which article are you referring to, exactly? The section title here is just a link to your userpage. No article has ever existed at Hopiakuta. The history log of deleted articles is only directly available to administrators, but if you need to see it for some reason, it can be temporarily undeleted and made accessible again. -Splash - tk 00:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I do have some responses,...

to your response.

Firstly, thank you, Thank You.

Secondly, that's my screenname: the extremely egomaniac concept of naming a primary page on it seems humorous,...

to me anyhow. I'm thinking that maybe I owe you to state it's meaning. I've named my turtle "HopiaKuta", or "Hopia". I, often, employ screennames based on "hopiakuta", "kutahopia", et al.

If you would open the page, for instance, for three to four hours [This being an example],... I know w/ the heatwave, potential blackouts|brownouts, either intentionally forced, &/or accidental, system-caused, I could miss the window.

That, in addition to ordinary issues of freezes|crashes,...

If you open it, I don't want to miss it. According to the news-reports, this is a very bad electricity-month. Personally, on Saturday, the twenty-second, I saw my thermometer go where I had never seen one go before.

Thank You.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:racism >.

Hopiakuta 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As the turtle crawls to the sea,
And the fish hides in the cracks.
As the tiger searches for food,
And the lion guards the gate.
So bad articles are deleted,
Sent forever to their place in nothingness.
It is the way of things.
--Daduzi talk 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Notice of intent to plagiarize: I am sooo going to steal that poem! Brilliant writing, simply brilliant :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did fall for your deception again.

Your racism seems impenetrable.

So, I guess that you, & your oppression, win.

Congratulations: weaklypaedia wins the swastika.

Hopiakuta 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I submit the above discussion for the "user most likely to qualify for own own eccentric page" award. Wjhonson 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV listings removed

I am wondering what the proper procedure is when the addition of items to DRV is reverted. One particular DRV listing has been posted twice consecutively, in reference to a number of these [4] edits, and twice has been reverted (apparently by administrative rollback). If this is an appropriate revert, please explain how and why such removal of legitimate DRV nominations is acceptable. My understanding is that DRV nominations, regardless of outcome, need to be listed as closed - they cannot simply be removed with no explanation by administrative fiat. Perhaps my understanding could be improved by some editors who understand what is happening here. Thanks! --71.36.251.182 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific about which listing you mean and I/we might be able to help you. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When did Arbcom penalise editors for keeping deleted content in userspace too long?

While clarifying the header of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, I removed some text that said

Note that using restored article text to recreate a deleted article is speedyable, and using it to keep it semi-permanently in your userspace has gotten editors penalised by the ArbCom in the past.

I've seen MfD discussions result in text getting deleted from userspace, but I don't know which Arbcom case this refers to. Anyone know? I think the text should be there, but it should point to a specific Arbcom ruling. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That first clause seems really off; we often encourage users to use deleted article text as a basis for recreating a better version of the article, so at the least it should differentiate between speediable G4-material recreations and using deleted articles as drafts. -- nae'blis 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to make the wording clearer. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Appealing the DRV, intent of DRV

I have to ask, because I'm completely disturbed by so much surrounding it. What is the process for appealing a DRV result? Wikipedia:Undeletion policy states it can be relisted here if something is missed (which is the route I'm leaning), but I don't want to go that route unless there's nowhere else to go with it. Also, perhaps we need to revisit the top portion, as it's becoming clear that DRV is no longer about "process" as it stands, given recent DRV discussions. Anyhow, yeah, thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was closed incorrectly, then either here or the admins' noticeboard seems the logical place to call the result into question, as it shouldn't take long to resolve. If new evidence comes to light, then I would say that another deletion review should be opened, after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not calling into question the closing, as the closing here inexplicably does headcounting instead of weight of arguments. I'm more concerned about DRV flat out getting it wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Back in the day when rocks were soft and Wikipedia was young, it was decided to have DRV be a majority-rule decision (the only one here on the project, I think), to avoid endless cycles of review. While this may be ignored on occasion, I don't expect it'll have an impact in this case. -- nae'blis 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You'd think, though, that endless cycles of review could be avoided by acutally addressing the issues inherent in what's brought to the table? I, again, am not protesting how anything was closed today. The closure was proper and by the book. The problem is the complete ignoring of the DRV calling in this case, for reasons suspected but unknown. If the "majority rule" gets it wrong, what's the recourse? One would hope that a simple relisting would not be the only option available, but maybe that's the unfortunate reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You'd think, though, that endless cycles of review could be moe simply avoided by having would-be wikilawyers accept community decisions rather than constantly trying to come up with new angles until they wear people down and get the reults they want -- pretty much the point of making sure there's an actual endpoint.
If the "majority rule" gets it wrong... Sounds like a variation on "Everyone's wrong but me". But if you're so certain that most peole are "getting it wrong", there's always Jimbo -- if it's so obvious, I'm sure you'll have no problem persuading hmm. --Calton | Talk 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's part of the rationale behind this exploration of an appeal - making it so community decisions can be accepted as opposed to the greater community consensus regarding policy to be ignored for questionable reasons. You know, cleaning up after the dishonest, incompetent, fanatical. Nothing wrong with that, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of dishonest: that would be the empty parroting of words from my user page without any regard for their actual meaning, purely as a rhetorical tactic and not because you believe a word of it.
But as for your "community support" claim, I went back and counted, and the DRV count was 42-9, an overwhelming count both in percentage and raw numbers: the community HAS spoken, and only the dishonest, incompetent, or fanatical won't admit or fail to see the obvious. If you actually cared about "community support" you would have listened to the community a long time ago instead of wikilawyering, constantly searching for just the right application or interpretation of guidelines/rules you can use as a club to get the result you want. --Calton | Talk 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do find the quote compelling, I just wish it was used more often. The "community support" is actually regarding the policies we have in place governing how and why we delete articles. Policies, which become as such due to wide community consensus about how we do things. Policies that were not only ignored wholeheartedly during the entire situation, but given the "discussion" at DRV, were not even considered further when prompted about it. That's a problem, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wish it was used more often. I use it all the time -- like right now, for example.
If you are, I'd love to see it. "Handwaving" isn't using it.--badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Policies, which become as such due to wide community consensus about how we do things. If policies come about due to wide community consensus, then logically their interpretation is equally by wide community consensus -- as opposed to your attempt to treat them as set in stone, inflexible markers in a pseudo-legalistic game, where if you navigate them just right you can get the result you want. Which is, of course, the actual problem for you -- you didn't get the result you wanted.
The policies which were "ignored wholeheartedly" were ignored, as far as I'm concerned, because they were wholeheartedly irrelevant -- the whinging about "early closing" in particular, given that dozens of AfD disussions are "closed early" every single week but somehow haven't generated the same sudden and tirelessly righteous concern for the process. Again, wikilawyering in action, looking for whatever angle will get you the result you want.
You apparently haven't been paying too much attention to me, then. I challenge early closures and out of process actions regularly when I see them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And you apparently can't read plain English, since I wrote "sudden and tirelessly righteous concern" (look, I even highlighted the relevant adverb and adjectives for you) -- i.e.; the long and extended process for this one (1) AfD.
I challenge early closures and out of process actions regularly when I see them [emphasis mine]. There are dozens of them each week, and yet I don't see dozens of challenges by you. If you challenge them "when [you] see them", I guess it means it's not me that's not paying too much attention, then. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you tone down the sarcasm, Calton? It's not helping the discussion any... -- nae'blis 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
But like I said, take it up with Jimbo. A cause as righteous as yours -- or, should I say, as righteous as you believe it to be -- should find an eager ear to hear it on his talk page and should quickly settle the matter. --Calton | Talk 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll have to. We'll see if it gets that far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

An OMG moment

I can't even remember why I came to deletion review - but looking at the recently concluded was an "OMG" moment. Mega Society and Encyclopaedia Dramatica deletion endorsed in the first four items! And looking further down Club Penguin! Luckily no more that I know are 'pedia worthy - but perhaps that's just my ignorance. Something is rotten in the state of AfD. Rich Farmbrough 22:44 28 July 2006 (GMT).

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Being part of the historical record means more than three people saying 'I played it/read it/called someone a rude word on it'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I quite agree. However, the point I'm making is that while I wouldn't expect a Mega Society article in a normal encyclopedia, and perhaps wouldn't miss it on WP, I would expect at least a redirect to High IQ societies which are a (possibly tasteless) cultural phenomenon of significance. Similarly ED could be a redirect to a "parody/satire" section of an article about major wikimedia installations - I don't know what it's Alexa rank is, but I know I've come across it many times. Club Penguin, however, is a phenomenon perhaps not as interesting to Wikipedians, but important in it's own right in the same way that, say The Magic Roundabout is, as a formative experience for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of children. Rich Farmbrough 21:25 15 August 2006 (GMT).

I still didn't understand the ED shutdown, with the whole lockdown and all. 24.188.203.181 23:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Geosteering" article deletion

Request for undeletion.

The Article named Geosteering, created on Sunday 30 July, got a speedy deletion tag while being written. I deleted this tag by mistake when I was editing the article. A new speedy deletion tag appeared few minutes after. I didn't bother and continued to write the article. I added links to other Wiki articles and to external resources. On the 31st morning, when I was going to edit this article and add more information, the article had disappeared. This is my first article and 1 question pops out.

Why this article, has it been deleted after half a day, while under construction and following the wiki rules? Can it be restored?

Florent GSS 15:50 31 July 2006 (GMT).

  • I have undeleted the article Geosteering and removed the speedy deletion notice. It didn't fit any of our speedy-deletion criteria anyway. Please note, though, that the article is still in danger of being deleted until it is expanded with more than simply a definition of what geosteering is. If it comes up for deletion, I would vote to keep it, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, for future reference, if someone adds a speedy delete tag to a page you are in the process of improving you can add {{hangon}} to the article to buy time, and then write a full explanation on the talk page --Daduzi talk 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lise Van Susteren

I'd actually like to just review this as opposed to "look to change the outcome" review this page normally does. XfD is meant to be a sampling method to determine commmunity consensus, but this was a biased sample it appears to me. I'd probably have relisted this to get wider input, but don't know if that's the best thing. I'm looking for some brainstorming here. To provide a counter-point, I'm probably several standard deviations from the norm with regards to how I close. - brenneman {L} 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but this looks like a case where relisting would have generated more opinions in a 50-50 split. I don't understand what you mean by a biased sample. There were no socks in the debate; all the commenters are active editors. Kind of a borderline case on notability, where it looks like this one would have ended up as a no-consensus regardless. Fan-1967 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
See, I think this shows how closers need to start being a little more observant in some of these cases. The nominee said "fails WP:BIO," which was false. Two people agreed (one "per nom", one "not notable") with the false premise. Since when does consensus involve weighing improper rationales? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would have been inclined to agree. Two of the claims of notability, IMO, had just about no value, being someone's sister and a failed candidate who dropped out in the primary. What we're left with is a doctor who had a good but not remarkable career, and had a weekly radio show, which is a pretty marginal claim. So "Fails WP:BIO" is not clearly false. Fan-1967 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the former is a legit claim, and the latter meets WP:BIO's "noteworthy events" clause. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when do failed candidates meet WP:BIO? Are you thinking of the discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates_and_elections? And there's precedent from many AFDs that having a famous relative does not automatically confer notability. -- nae'blis 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing saying they don't, and even if they didn't, her candidacy plus her bloodline would make a neat little exception. No binding precedents and such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Fan-1967. Not sure what's biased about the sample. Decent arguments on both sides. I probably would have closed it as a clear keep, but "no consensus" is not unreasonable, especially since that's effectively the same result. =) Powers 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Gah... I'm trying not to make this personal, so forgive me if I tread lightly.
  • As I mentioned above, I'm aware that some of my policy interpretations are at the thin end of the distribution. The "keepers" here are also mostly also outside the norm.
  • If I can use badlydrawnjeff as an example (since I intended to notify him of this thread just so that I could use him as an example) of this: I often respect his opinions, and think that he regularly presents good arguments. But I think he'd agree that often of his recomendations are somewhat out of step with the "consensus." Jeff, if me saying this is in any way offensive to you, please say so straight away.
  • There are a lot of XfDs going on at one time, and most people don't take part in them. If there is a (percieved) sampling error, what's the best way to deal with it? The best thing would be less deletion nominations, or having them only when something really needed to be discussed/deleted so that we could have more in-depth discussions.
  • If there is any question about this sampling error, I can provide a list of AfDs where an article (basiclly unchanged) recieved wildly different results in multiple nominations.
  • Some of this is about repeated nominations. I think they are destructive, and that the "process" gets in the way of the discussion.
I'm feeling out for general ideas and this particular AfD was just an example.
brenneman {L} 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't offend me as long as you're honest, and I'm certainly the lone voice in the wilderness at times. If I had caught this AfD, I likely would have said what I'm saying above, for that matter.
Anyway, to kind of answer the question, two things need to occur:
  • Better admin discretion. We have long-standing, widely accepted, policies and guidelines regarding content here, so let's use them. If 10 people go to an AfD, 7 say "delete, WP:MUSIC," and the other three note that the article, does, in fact meet said guideline, that should be a keep, no questions asked. Otherwise, we should simply abandon the guidelines altogether and pretend that there's no overwhelming consensus regarding content.
  • DRV must become consensus-based. Not only to correct when a closing admin makes a mistake in a situation above, but to make sure that the DRV result in fact results in proper process and reflection of community standards, and not by a strict vote count. Sure, I complained about it regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica a week or two ago, but DRV did it again with Yoism earlier this week, too [5].
  • Concerning multiple renoms, I got consensus at WP:SK to change it, until one guy arbitrarily changed it and set off a shitstorm. UseR:Kim_Bruning put in a rather toothless facsimile that absolutely no one pays attention to. If we treated speedy keep with even marginally similar relevance to speedy delete, we could head a lot of these AfDs off at the pass.
I'm curious, just for the hell of it, what your feelings on this AfD in particular were. I'd like to get a feel for your greater reasoning, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, process is important, and doesn't really work if there's scant participation. We can address that - how about extending discussion of cases that have relatively few votes and are not clear-cut decisions one way or the other? Let's say if the AfD has fewer than ten votes, and it's 60/40 to delete, we give it a few more days? bd2412 T 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that really productive? If you only have two or three responses, it makes sense to relist. If you have 8-10 already, and it's splitting pretty closely (with no socks), is it really likely that if you get ten more that they won't split, too? I suspect you could relist this particular article till the cows come home and still not get consensus. Fan-1967 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of my recent relists

May Bob forgive have mercy on my sole for the blatant vote counting I'm about to do. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Old count -> New count Change
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Greenhouse Cafe 3K/3D -> 4K/5D 6%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures 6K/10D -> 16K/34D 6%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulric Nisbet 1K/2D -> 7K/5D -25%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stickpage 3K/4D -> 5K/10D 10%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires units and structures 3K/6D -> 4K/14D 11%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop dead 3.5K/3D -> 4K/9D 23%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Techno Militia Collective 2K/2D -> 3K/2D -10%
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medina neighborhoods 7K/5D -> 14K/6D -12%
So sometimes a relist can make a big difference, even in discussions that already have more than eight contributors. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting help?

I've attempted to a DRV just now for Category:Pseudoscientist, but the title section isn't appearing and I can't figure out what's wrong. Assistance would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When posting a link to a category or image, remember the colon. [[:Category:whatever]] or [[:Image:whatever.jpg]]. Jim62sch fixed it. Fan-1967 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the heads up. (I'm actually not sure I knew that). JoshuaZ 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a required stage in recreation

"Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information..." I understand that this is about simple mistakes in process, but the header implies that a new article must be reviewed before being created if an old one has been deleted. This appears to contradict the speedy deletion criterion's "substantially identical" clause. I think that it's better if something gets created in user space and reviwed first, but it's not obligatory according to policy. - Aaron Brenneman 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • True. I think it's a common-sense thing, really. If it's plain and clear that the subjects are different and unconnected, there's no real need for a DRV. DRV is about sorting out the grey areas. Andrew Lenahan 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Aaron is right (and I've no idea how or why anyone would say otherwise). The DRV header is grossly incorrect about the undeletion process and this has been the case for the better part of a year. Of course nobody needs permission or review to create a new article, and incorrectly deleted articles can be restored by any administrator without permission. --Tony Sidaway 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

August 11

Can someone list August 11th on the main page it's not up yet and I'm not quite sure how to do it. Whispering(talk/c) 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, go to the 'Decisions to be reviewed' section header, click 'edit' next to it, and at the bottom of the edit window you'll see something like:

{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 10}}

{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 9}}

{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 8}}

(and so on for all the daily logs currently shown)
Just copy and paste one of those lines, add it to the top of that list, and change the date. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clueless in Chicago...

I have no idea where to pose this, so forgive me if this isn't the right place.

There are two pages—2002 GayVN Awards and 4th GayVN Awards—that have been deleted (appropriately so); however, they continue to show up in the results of a search on "GayVN".

Was the deletion process not completed correctly? Or is this the usual result, and I'm just now noticing it?

Thanks.—Chidom talk  18:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is, as far as I can tell, the usual result for the search engine. Remember that the search engine does not update in real-time. It returns its results based on the cached version found the last time its spider grabbed the page. It should drop off after a while but it can take days or weeks for that to happen.
Having said that, this was an inappropriate speedy-deletion. The speedy-deletion criteria are deliberately quite specific and narrow. Redirects may not be deleted simply because all the information has been moved out. The redirect itself serves several purposes including assisting in the preservation of the contribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and to point the original authors and readers to the new location so they can join in the effort to improve the article at the right title. Redirects with history must be discussed and decided in a deletion discussion first. I can find no evidence that these were ever discussed at WP:RFD and am going to undelete them pending such a discussion. Thanks for pointing them out. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also got similar information here from Bunchofgrapes.

I was unaware of the GFDL requirement to preserve the history. Has that ever been accomplished in some way other than leaving the redirect pages intact? Perhaps copying the history to the Talk page (or some other connected, /Special page) of the actual article? My concern, as I expressed to Bunchofgrapes, is that when someone searches on "gayvn", they get 15 links that are redirects out of the 51 that are useful articles. Unfortunately, the useless redirects are at the top of the results. Adding a "gayvn" redirect isn't desirable, as there are instances of that terminology within other articles that should be part of the search results; searching "gayvn" shouldn't automatically take the searcher to GayVN Awards.

Obviously, the redirects that address issues of capitalization and singular/plural searching should be kept. The other redirects, however, are not titles that someone would normally type into the search box, and it would be nice (if possible) to remove them. I won't waste time with an RfD if there just isn't a way to preserve the history in some other manner. (I'm a Virgo - does it show?)—Chidom talk  10:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two common ways to preserve the attribution history without preserving the redirect.
  1. Copy-paste the history of the origin page into the Talk of the destination page.
  2. Follow the history-merge process. I keep a copy here.
While technically feasible, I consider both of these to be less than ideal. Both are extra steps which most users (and indeed, most admins) won't take the time to carry out. Both are somewhat error-prone. Both also sacrifice detail about the specific contributions. And if you delete the redirect after, neither will serve to point the original user(s) and readers to the correct destination page. Without the redirect, the pages tend to get recreated.
The search-engine problem should tend to solve itself over time. Remember that our search engine is powered by Google which prioritizes returns in part based on the number of inbound links. As the redirect gets orphaned and as the search engine gradually refreshes itself, the redirects should drop further and further down in the search returns. That, I think, will mitigate most of the difficulties you describe. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I think I'll try letting it go.—Chidom talk (Just call me "Fluffy")19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion and protection of club penguin

Why was the club penguin article deleted and proteced? I'ts a nice game, lots of people play it, and its #1 on miniclip! Roule 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Undelete of Bob Ricci

Hi, I'm the one who recently edited Bob Ricci's music page, and I used the information from his myspace page and I guess it wasn't exactly objective. I didn't mean to get his entry deleted, I just thought that the write up that was there was kinda short and uninformative. I'm wondering if you'd reconsider because now I feel bad. I know for a fact that the article wasn't started by Bob Ricci, but I think it's my fault that it got removed. If you want 3rd party reassurance that he belongs on here, do a simple google search on "Bob Ricci" in quotes. I'm showing 24,000 matches and lots of third party references to him. Plus, his song "She Blocked Me" is currently availabe on Ebaum's World, Albinoblacksheep.com, and a ton of other sites. He also passes WP:MUSIC since it's been on the charts in Canada, UK, Australia, and even Germany (due to a flash video being done by a German fan) and is also on regular rotation on actually quite a few radio stations even in the US (check his site for a list of upcoming radio interviews he has on actual stations) He's also in rotation on National Lampoon's official satellite radio station. We fans have been able to collaborate a complete discography of his CDs and also unreleased material here on WP, and it's a shame to see it go. I hope you'll take this into consideration.

Also, in his deletion discussion, somebody mentioned the fact that "anybody with a CD burner can have a CD for sale", but Bob Ricci is on iTunes, and not "anybody with a CD burner" can be on iTunes. They have a strict screening policy. I know this first hand cause I can't get myself on there for the life of me. Read their policy. So label or not, he's recognized as a musician, and there are a lot of noted musicians who forgo a label in the music industry's current state. There also seemed to be a fair amount of posts supporting that the article remain, and it seems as if the people who argued for deletion didn't really research very much. They simply said that the article was written for vanity (which was an objective opinion with no support) or that Bob wasn't notable enough (which doesn't make sense to me because of the sheer amount of info out there on him), or that he didn't pass WP:Music, but he does by a few stipulations if you'd do the research.

I'm all for what WP stands for and believe me, if I didn't feel that Bob deserved to be on here I wouldn't be making these arguements. But I feel that he more than qualifies. Just because a few WP admins haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's on here for vanity. And as I said, his WP page was created and maintained by his fans. SSMatt 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SSMatt (talk • contribs) .

A reasonable argument, but this isn't the place for it. You should take your evidence for notability to the project page rather than this talk page. And be sure to follow the instructions and sign your posts. =) Powers T 18:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I edited the page anonymously and I just made this account recently to post my arguement. On the deletion discussion page though it said to continue futher discussion here? SSMatt 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I moved it there. Was it right to put it after the other entires? Or should have I have listed it first? Will it affect it's visibility? I'm not really too familiar with the processes here yet. SSMatt 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

moneysavingexpert.com

Sorry - I'm unfamiliar with the procedures of wikipedia

I see the article on this site was deleted

I know that on first glance moneysavingexpert.com might look like a small site, and the article had been edited to look a bit spamy, but as it says on the Martin Lewis article "This is ranked the biggest consumer and personal finance site in the UK with over 1,000,000 users each month and over 600,000 receiving the Martin's Money Tips weekly e-mail"

See also: Parlimentary motion of support about: about page

The article was far from complete, but would have gotten there

The article was just being built up, it could have be reverted, and a good debate about it started, but it was deleted today very quickly as being a recreation-of-deleted - which it wasn't

Note, this article had a full AFD, with a clear delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneysavingexpert.com. — xaosflux Talk 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like the AFD was unanimous, with 12 editors voting to delete. We'd need some pretty substantial reasons to overturn a consensus that strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Those were of previous version of the article. It was started again today (completely new content) and deleted very quickly as "recreation of deleted material" when it was not. I'm not defending any previous versions - or even todays where someone added a lot of graphics - Just want to make sure that if it is restarted, and complies with wikipedias terms, it won't be wiped because people think its a small site spamming - a site that big should have a Wikipedia article
If you'd like to make a new version of a deleted article, it's a good idea to make it in user space first. If you log in, I'll gladly copy the most recent version into your userspace for you so you can work on it if you wish. You may want to have a look at WP:WEB, which is widely accepted as a minimum inclusion guideline for websites. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it may be really useful to read through Wikipedia:Your first article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"If you log in, I'll gladly copy the most recent version into your userspace for you so you can work on it if you wish."- Many thanks, that would be great. I've tweaked many Wikipedia pages in the past, but new to all other things wiki. Can I ask others intersted to modify the article on the userpage - then copy it accross when it's more acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldaden (talk • contribs)
Okay, I've gona ahead and put a copy of it at User:Aldaden/workspace. As written, it wouldn't meet WP:WEB and isn't really written in an encyclopedic tone, so it needs a lot of work. It's in your user space, but that doesn't mean other users can't work on it if you wish. When you think it's ready, you should request a review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, and if it passes it can be copied back into the main eneyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. I had never intended to work on it much myself. The intention was to start the article, link to it, and hopefully by the end of the day many users would have made it compliant - but it was deleted when it had only just started. I now understand the system much better - thanks everyone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldaden (talk • contribs) .
By the way, Aldaden, it really helps in dicsussions like this to know who said what. Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- Fan-1967 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks Aldaden 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

How can the page be legitimately deleted, while there are still pages on, for example, Star Wars Kid? Just interested really. Can't you see that Jimbo stepping in like this just enhances your negative reputation? 193.63.21.78 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the Pokémon argument isn't the right argument to use here. FWIW, I happen to believe that Brian Peppers shouldn't have been deleted, but now that it is, I'm carrying on like normal. Of course, I have two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork or the right to leave, but I chose neither. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin "Ben" Holladay

In updating links for Pony Express I did some nosing around and see that Benjamin "Ben" Holladay has been locked and deleted. I don't see an explanation in any of the logs. There was a request for article that was weak but I used as the basis for an article on Ben Holladay which is one it should have been. I would like to see the logic on the original deletion and locking. Holladay bought the Pony Express and sold it to Wells Fargo. His mansions are mentioned in articles. Follow the links!!! The long name needs to be unlocked and forwarded to the Ben Holladay article. Americasroof 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki problems

Several WP articles have recently been moved (improperly) to wikibooks, without the contributions histories. I want to get them undeleted (briefly) so I can retrieve those histories as required by the GFDL, and perhaps to let the original authors know where they went.

The ones I have in mind right now are annotations of Peanuts books (sounds silly, but they're actually quite good).

The transwiki was done by an IP who has made no other edits there... search doesn't work very wekk on wikibooks so I cant tell if others were brought over earlier. What we have so far (from WB newpages log):

  • 17:56, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1959 to 1960 Annotations (hist) ‎[2,152 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
  • 17:56, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1957 to 1958 Annotations (hist) ‎[11,611 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
  • 17:55, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1955 to 1956 Annotations (hist) ‎[13,336 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
  • 17:53, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations (hist) ‎[12,296 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
  • 17:52, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1953 to 1954 Annotations (hist) ‎[2,565 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)

The full series of Wikipedia articles (8 of them) can be found here. I need the two that are missing, and the edit histories for all of them (if anyone's willing to do that, it just involves copying the contribs page(s), and pasting them onto the talk of the wikibook module.

If I'm online, I'll be tuned into #wikibooks on irc if someon'es willing to help. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing now (talking on IRC) —Mets501 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the Matthew J. Marshall Page

He's more important than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Walker and you let him on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdf273 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, the Pokémon argument isn't the right argument to use here. If you believe that Andre Walker isn't notable enough for inclusion, you are free to nominate that article for deletion as well. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is he? Wjhonson 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No idea. There is nothing in the deleted article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Here it is: [6], speedied twice as A7. Based on google and author's contribs he's some sort of officer of University of Birmingham Guild of Students. -- Fan-1967 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don’t delete my skiffing page

This page was deleted within 5 minuets of me creating it by User:Casper2k3 before I had time to add to it.

Skiffing is a term used within the British army and is not something I have made up, nor was it an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GokuARRSE (talk • contribs)

The deleted text was The transfer of bum mud from the skiffers ring to the skiffys upper lip. Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary (or a military slang dictionary, for that matter.) I don't see how the article could be expanded to include more than a slang def AND be reliably sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is nothing but trolling. · rodii · 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So if I were to rewrite the article in correct English (i.e. if I changed “bum mud” to “poo” or “terd”) would that be acceptable????

Maybe at Urbandictionary. Folks, see www.arrse.co.uk (not link) for background on this. · rodii · 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary may be a better fit. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Creation Protection to be removed from Move.com page

I recently tried to add basic information about the company Move.com (formerly Home Store, Inc.) to the Wikipedia but it was continuously removed and is now protected from further creation. I was making an honest attempt at creating a wiki-worth page void of sales pitches, marketing copy, and anything that promotes a product or service; however it was still removed and all other attempts to improve the page resulted in the same outcome. After reviewing other wiki pages of similar companies (i.e. KB Homes), I understand the desired wiki content of such a company. I am asking to have the page reinstated so that I may create a wiki-worthy page. I made what I thought were revisions to the content when it was deamed an advertisement but it appears my attempts to improve the page has worked against me. All I'm asking is for a chance to work with the wiki community to create an appropriate page for Move.com.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankjohnson999 (talk • contribs)

All commentary and the original post have been moved to a formal deletion review, as this is not the space for such requests. -- nae'blis 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone look at this?

The way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga published in English by Tokyopop was closed looks iffy to me. On the last day the nom declares a re-listing and then only with one vote it is deleted. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it had already run for 8 days right? An admin doesn't have to honor the relisting, do they? Syrthiss 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The closer's terse statement doesn't make what discussion was used clear. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You might go ask Nandesuka on their talk page. :) Syrthiss 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stick Figure Empire

Could anyone reactivate the Article Stick Figure Empire? It was a pretty cool articles, and i have no idea why it was deleted. Please Reactivate it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TK002 (talk • contribs)

It must of been speedied I can't find anything. Whispering(talk/c) 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted via CSD #A7; that generally means the original article wasn't clear on why the Stick Figure Empire was notable/encyclopedic. -- nae'blis 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Stick Figure Empire was speedy-deleted on 22 Aug by user:Fang Aili who cited speedy-deletion criterion A7. The opening sentence of this page read "The Stick Figure Empire is a fictional political faction made up by TK 002 for other peoples enjoyment." It did not qualify for speedy-deletion under that specific criterion because it was not about a real person, etc. but this was patently deletable because Wikipedia is not a free web-host. I probably would have speedy-deleted it under case A1 (no context for expansion into an encyclopedia article). Rossami (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Goblins, Life through their eyes

There was once an article about this webcomic, but now there seems not to be one. Was it deleted, and if so why? Can we have it back please? zeigfreid

Goblins (webcomic) was deleted via WP:PROD. I have restored it per your request, but you may wish to discuss it with the nominator and see if you can address their concerns as they are free to nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, the Goblins webcomic commuity is going to keep a closer eye on it this time community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeigfreid (talk • contribs) .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Archive_7&oldid=1087658021"