Votes for Undeletion

#redirect Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion

Votes for undeletion

simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletionWikipedia maintenance Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by Wikipedia:Administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003. == Purpose of this page == It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people: # People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion. # Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. 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 m:MediaWiki_roadmap feature is completed. 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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack. ==How to use this page== == 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. === June 21 === ==== Thomas Mesereau ==== Rredirect articles to this gentleman (a lawyer who was involved in the recent Jackson trial) are being systematically deleted, reserving only a lead article which without the redirects some people will never find. Could someone please arbitrate on which redirects ought to exist. User:Simoncursitor 13:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) This appears to have sorted itself out. Thank you. --User:Simoncursitor 10:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Temporary undeletion == == Votes for undeletion == ===June 22, 2005=== ====Vince DeMentri==== I see no reson why this person should be deleted as opposed to the numerous article on numerious other brodacasters, espically those from the New York market and no one has question those articles. The "vote" was tainted by to many sockpuppett votes froma user that has a sigificant anti-Philadelphia bias. For those who do not know Philadelphia is not mid-market, Tulsa is mid-market, Philadelphia is the 4th largest televison market in the Univted States, only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are ranked higher, whcih means on any give night theis anchor is seen by some where around 1,000,000 television watchers. WP:BIO is a flawed process, based on it's cretiera i would estimate that some where arond 50% if not more articles based on entertainment related figures would be deleatable. And we are in shuch in a hury to delete articles on real people that arn't vanity, we let sand the hundreds of artivcle on minor characters from things like starwars, pokemon, many artciles are just a chart, et al. But thats the VFD mistake for you. But being i am asking the "establishment" to do something aginst their grain, in the end this undeletion request will more then likely be futile. --User:Boothy443 | User talk:Boothy443 06:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) *If you don't like the VfD process or WP:BIO, try changing them first. This seems to be a correctly done VfD, Keep deleted. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 06:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC) **the establishment at work again. --User:Boothy443 | User talk:Boothy443 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete, including alleged sockpuppets that vote was 12-7 which is not a consensus. Exluding them makes seems to make it even less of a consensus. User:Kappa 06:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted, VFD was valid. Votes of new users (plausible socks) should be discounted, and not all such votes are marked such in the discussion (e.g. AdamTheHun has ~30 edits). I'd say cesarb has done well in sorting it out. Plus, articles must stand on their own, and comparing the deletion of an article on a person to the keeping of an article on pokemon is a false analogy. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 08:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) *Undelete. The VFD debate is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vince DeMentri. When I make a vote tally I find these clearly "good" delete votes: Spotteddogsdotorg, Geogre, RickK, Smack, JamesBurns, Xcali, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Grue, Quale. UncleFloyd's is also probably good faith, but his first edit was June 14 while the debate started June 12. In total 9 or 10 delete votes. As for keep votes we find Kappa, Bastique, SchmuckyTheCat, AdamTheHun, Unfocused, and Kaibabsquirrel. In total 6 keeps. This is a majority for deletion, but it is well short of a two thirds majority, and definitely not a consensus, and I see nothing unusual in the comments and reasons given to say that there was a consensus after all. On the contrary, considering that the VFD debate for Tracy Davidson resulted in a keep, consistency would be that Vince DeMentri also be kept. The VFD debate was valid, but the correct result would have been calling it "keep, no consensus". User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Hm, interesting. If you go by contributions, then UncleFloyd's vote is valid and AdamTheHun's is not, making the ratio 10 to 5. If you go by date of account creation, then UncleFloyd's vote is not valid, and Adam's is, making the ratio 9 to 6. If you go by rationale of voting (or lack thereof) then both sides are rather lacking. Bottom line? Cesarb was not out of line in deleting this. Since I believe VFU should be about the process and not the content, my vote to keep deleted stands. We may want to consider making the process more explicit, but that, too, has its dangers. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 09:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) ***AdamTheHun's account has been at Wikipedia almost as long as mine has and should be counted. The fact that UncleFloyd has continued to make constructive edits makes me lean towards counting his vote, so 10-6 is my count. Not a consensus in my book, nor would 11-6 be a consensus. In general I think a closing admin should have a ''very'' good reason to delete an article if the debate is short of a two-thirds majority. User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 09:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***One other thing about VFD, there is no well established rules for what is the suffrage, but the VFD header does say something about the time the user been at Wikipedia (''"Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made."''), while it does not say anything about number of edits. User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 10:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted, valid VfD. One thing to keep in mind is that VfD is not ''only'' about vote counting, but is also about the vote closer exercising judgement based on the discussion. The number of votes was almost exactly on the border for consensus, so ceserb had to look at the discussion itself. I don't think he made the decision out of process, so therefore I think it should be kept deleted. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 12:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) *As the one who deleted it, I have done a recount, to be able to present how I counted things there: ** Spotteddogsdotorg: delete ** Hohokus and Melvis: both delete. Both are sort of new, but were not created after the voting began. I believe I ignored Melvis, because it had too few edits and all were VfD or TV related. ** Geogre: delete ** Kappa: keep ** Bastique: keep ** Smack: delete ** JamesBurns: delete ** Xcali: delete ** Jeffrey O. Gustafson: delete ** SchmuckyTheCat: keep ** ConeyCyclone: delete, but too new (created on the same day of the log). Ignored. ** Jinkleberries: keep, but too new (created on the same day of the log), and suspicious (see the noticeboard discussion). Ignored. ** RickK: delete ** AdamTheHun: keep. Few edits, and I believe all TV related, but old enough. ** Grue: delete ** Unfocused: keep ** Kaibabsquirrel: keep ** Quale: delete ** UncleFloyd: delete, but too new. Ignored. *:Total: 10-6 *:That value might not be exactly the same one I used the first time, but it will be pretty close. As said above, there are no established rules as to how much is needed, and the discussions count. Other admins might count things differently; I'm just presenting the way I did. And as to whether to keep deleted or undelete, I have no opinion; I abstain. *:--User:CesarB 12:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted We must remember that VfDs are not votes in the strictest sense, and that the regardless of the exact count, it's up to the closing admin to make the call. While an undelete might be warranted if the closing admin's decision is obviously directly opposed to the consensus, that clearly is not the case here. It was a close one, the admin made the call, and that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Valid VfD, Keep deleted. Starblind">User:Starblind 12:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) ===June 20, 2005=== ====Stacey Castro==== She is a bona-fide entertainment industry executive who manages known artists and actors. Many of her clients are listed here in Wikipedia. Yahoo, Google, etc. give many search results for this person. *comment as VFD'ed as vanity, and got consensus to delete, albeit with a low number of votes (two deletes, one abstention). Was later recreated, and speedied for that. At first glance her page is sorely lacking in verifiability. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 07:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Went through a valid VFD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stacey Castro. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted Valid VFD (with a low vote count, but there's no rule against that). Starblind">User:Starblind 14:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. With a low vote count I am sometimes willing to vote undelete if there is information about the subject that did not surface at the VFD. Unfortunately, managers are not inherently notable while the artists are, and I see no good reason to overturn this debate. User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - valid vfd vote - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===June 19, 2005=== ====:Image:Ac.aidsindia.jpg==== Was linked to in the latest BJAODN entry, and I'm curious to see what it was. *I'm sorry, but images are unundeletable. --User:CesarB 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Well, there's an image of the same name on other wikis, not 100% sure that it's the same one, but it probably is. Try [http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9:Ac.aidsindia.jpg this]. Starblind">User:Starblind 17:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) **I remember it, and yes that was the image.User:Zeimusu | User talk:Zeimusu *Anyone knows why it was deleted. Maybe it should be re-uploaded? Many pictures exist just for BJAODN's sake. Grue ">User:Grue 05:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) **From the logs: ***17:45, 8 Apr 2005 User:Dbenbenn deleted ":Image:Ac.aidsindia.jpg" (''on WP:IFD since March 31'') **:--User:CesarB 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***Normally an image is not deleted if it is used in any article (even BJAODN). This one must have slipped past. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===June 18, 2005=== ====:Category:Causes c�l�bres==== This category was proposed for deletion on grounds of vagueness but the vagueness simply came from editors putting their articles in it wrongly. A cause c�l�bre is something quite definite. I created the category in December and tried to put all the causes c�l�bres I could think of in it - there were about 20. Since then it has grown to more than 90 which is an indication that this category is well thought-of by its users. I was not alerted to the deletion debate until finding it by accident just under a week after it had started, which I think means that it had insufficient chance for proper consideration. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 15:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Original discussion from CfD is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11 --User:Kbdank71 16:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Do you have any reason why? If I had had the opportunity I would have made the case for its retention immediately it had been nominated, but I was not told and just chanced upon it. No reason was ever given for nominating it, and as you must surely realise the number of people who visit WP:CFD is tiny. This issue simply has not been considered and it deserves at the least a debate. Please do me the courtesy of arguing it rather than relying on the caprice of who happens to wander by Categories for Deletion. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 16:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***After reading the discussions made at CfD, I agreed with the points made in favor to delete. --User:Kbdank71 17:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ****What 'discussions'? There were none! User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****The original discussion from CfD is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11 --User:Kbdank71 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ******Makes my point entirely. It's a list of assertions. No-one makes an argument until I added my own vote. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 17:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *******People make the argument that the category is ill-defined. The distinction between a normal cause and a Cause C�l�bres may be perfectly clear to you, but there exists no consensual non-ambiguous definition thereof. Keep deleted. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 21:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) ********A cause c�l�bre isn't a cause. It's a French phrase in common use in English. The French word 'cause' means a legal case in English. Do I take it from the fact that you did not know this that you are in general ignorance as to the significance of the articles in the category? User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 23:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *********You know, asserting that other people lack the intelligence required to join the debate is not winning you any points for civility, nor is it a sound argument. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) **********Stop distorting what I've written. Intelligence is completely different to knowledge, and it's knowledge which you manifestly lacked. How about reconsidering your vote now you know better? User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***********How about you reading WP:CIV? User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 08:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) ************Proposing my favourite category for deletion and not telling me is a very uncivil thing to do. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 09:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) *************If you had had it on your watchlist, you would have known. How exactly are people supposed to know it's your favorite category? User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) *************That is one of the silliest arguments I've heard on WP yet (and that's saying something). Do you really think that the Wikimedia Foundation keeps a master list somehwere of everyone's favourite stuff, and sends a singing telegram to your door when one of your faves is up for deletion? Come on, now. Since it's important to you, you should have put it on your watch list. Keeping up with your favourite WP content is your responsibility, not WP's or anyone else's. Starblind">User:Starblind 12:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) ***Question: Can you explain how this category is different than :Category:Landmark cases? Or why we should keep, in the english Wikipedia, a clear duplicate of Landmark cases, just using French? --User:Kbdank71 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) **** I'll try. A ''Cause celebre'' is not necessarily always a legal case, or a legal case where a decision has been rendered. :Category:Landmark cases implies a decision which is final, all arguements have ceased (to wit, Brown v. Board of Education, etc); Lee Harvey Oswald, on the otherhand, never stood trial, so his invlovement (or lack thereof) would qualify as a ''cause celebre''; similiarly O. J. Simpson, while fully exonerated, some would still consider a ''cause celebre''. A ''cause celebre'' could be applied to a political scandal, like Filegate, or Iran contra, cause it suggests NPOV in absence of a final judicial finding which then would make it a fully qualified scandal. User:Nobs01 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Valid CfD for valid reasons—no possibility of clear criteria for inclusion, and no purpose served by trying to form such a group other than to attach a POV designation to the articles. User:Postdlf 16:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) **That's competely untrue. But surely the point is that that issue was never raised during the CFD discussion. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 16:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***It's why I voted to delete in the first place, even though I didn't bother typing it out (an express rationale isn't necessary for a vote, just for the deletion nomination). The words "POV", "inherently arbitrary", and "vague" were also used, so everyone but you were apparently on the same page with this one. User:Postdlf 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ****There was no "express rationale" for the deletion nomination - no rationale whatsoever. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 18:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Valid CfD. People can express their opinions or not, though I wish they would, but their votes are valid whether you agree with them or not. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 21:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) **I'm not saying their votes are invalid. I'm saying the valid votes of those who want to keep the Category have not been counted because they have not been cast because those editors were unaware of the debate. That's unacceptable. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 21:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***Er, what? The page was listed for a week (per procedure) and had a plainly visible tag on the category itself stating "this category is to be deleted". It got more votes than the average CFD entry. I'm afraid we cannot get every Wikipedian's input on *FD pages. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 21:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) ****What do you mean "Er, what"? One week is clearly not sufficient because CFD doesn't get the traffic. I'm not saying that every registered user must vote but one week is a ridiculously short time for a page which is barely noticed. Please do not misrepresent me again. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 22:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****If you disapprove of present CFD policy, you should propose an amendment. Plain fact is that by ''present'' policy, this category was properly deleted. Regarding your accusation of misrepresenting, please show me where I'm ''representing'' you in the first place. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ******Your misrepresentation is your claim that I demanded that every Wikipedian's vote be needed on the CFD debate. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *******Ironically, that is a misrepresentation of my statement. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted Valid CfD. Starblind">User:Starblind 21:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) **No it wasn't. Please supply an argument. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 22:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***Well, so far, most of your reasoning is that not enough people voted for the CfD. In reality, the CfD got more votes than average and was up for the normal time as stated in official policy. I don't see any evidence at all that policy wasn't followed. Starblind">User:Starblind 01:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ****That's not an argument against undeletion. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****Actually, it is. There are only two circumstances in which undeletion can happen, and they're listed right on top of this very page under the "Purpose of this page" heading. Reason #2 clearly does not apply here, and reason #1 doesn't fit either because deletion policy was fully followed. In fact, it specifically states, and I quote: "''Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.''" Therefore, not only is there is no reason to undelete, there is no reason (within policy) to even nominate for undeletion. Starblind">User:Starblind 12:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) ***Your problem seems to be with the CfD process in general, not with this particular CfD. You might want to bring any suggestions over to Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. -User:Gtrmp 07:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ****That's a separate issue though. The defective current policy should not be allowed to abolish a category which is extremely popular with editors, having now gathered more than 100 articles. User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete; Oxford defines as "A notorious legal case; generally a controversy or scandal that attracts much attention." It expresses NPOV for a "scandel" where there is a "good guy/bay guy" dispute. User:Nobs01 00:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted a perfectly valid CFD. I stand by my original view that ''causes c�l�bre'' is far too vague a notion for a category. - User:SimonP 00:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) *Undelete. A lot of the votes both on the original CfD ''and'' on this page seem to have happened because people don't understand the meaning of the phrase. Due process is all very well, but it doesn't trump common sense. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 00:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete, I see this as being quite an important category. --User:Kiand 02:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted/Re-delete. Ambiguous and, in its current incarnation, far too broad in scope; could theroetically cover anything and anyone that has ever caused controversy. (Paula Abdul? Come ''on''.) :Category:Controversies could cover the general entries in this category, and :Category:Legal cases or :Category:Legal trials could cover the specifically trial-related entries. :Category:Controversies doesn't exist (justifiably, IMHO, as it would also be ambiguously broad), and the latter category or categories could be created from, or as a parent to, :Category:Landmark cases. -User:Gtrmp 07:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) **Surely a :Category:Controversies is a power of magnitude more vague than a Cause c�l�bre? Why do you promote it as an alternative when it clearly is not? User:Dbiv | User talk:Dbiv 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***I'm not - I did say that it was as vague as this category is. (Then again, somebody thought that :Category:Controversial books was a good idea.) -User:Gtrmp 05:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) *The VfD for this appears to have been conducted properly, yet for some reason, the Category appears to still be in existence, for whatever reason, whether because it was improperly removed (which begs the question, \"What maladies affect the admins?\", was never actually removed (which would beg the question, \"why a VfU?\"), or has been vandalistically re�nstated (which begs the question, why has a RfC not been filed against the apparently vandalist re�nstator?). So, like I said, the VfD appears to have been conducted properly, so this should remain deleted''', but if this really is a rehash of the vote at the original CfD discussion, I'd like to weigh in by saying, delete this arbitrary Cat. User:TShilo12 ^{User talk:TShilo12} 07:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) **The category was marked for emptying, but before that could be done, it was listed here, presumably to keep it from happening. --User:Kbdank71 15:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted, went through CfD properly and the reasoning given (much too fuzzy) makes sense. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 23:51, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) *Undelete. Valid, worthwhile, and encyclopedic category. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 10:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted, inherently POV and vague collection, hece useless. There were millions of notable events. user:mikkalai user talk:mikkalai 06:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ====Degrees of Cambridge University==== This was speedied from the look of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Degrees+of+Cambridge+University deletion log], but I'm 99.9999% sure I had read the page before. I suspect it had been vandalised and speedied a little too fast. I could be wrong, though.-User:Splash 03:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) *Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Only two edits in the undeletion history—an obvious test of random characters, and the application of the speedy delete tag. User:Postdlf 03:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Comment: This seems to be a weird article to suddenly stick vandalism on, given the existence of a similar article in Degrees of Oxford University. But it's possible the vandal simply followed a redlink from Master's degree. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - nonsense - entire content: "dtht" - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 15:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===June 16, 2005=== ====Digg==== [http://digg.com] has a huge audience and had a good original article (before the second delete). If there's a way to revive the article before the first delete, then this would be desirable. --User:Hoovernj 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - article was legitimately deleted using vfd process - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Digg (2) -- User:Francs2000 | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit§ion=new Talk] 22:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - Valid VfD - no need for more adverts. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 22:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. The original article has been recreated so many times that the redirect is now protected. I see no reason to open up this can of worms again. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 02:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Valid VFD which was marred by a brigade of sockpuppets. User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 08:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted Valid VFD, sockpuppet-supported article. Starblind">User:Starblind 11:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) *I've been registered for less than a week, so I don't get a vote. That's ok; it's obvious why the suffrage rules are there. However, I marked digg.com for speedy a couple days ago, and it's been bothering me ever since; I in fact tracked down VFU specifically to propose this article, and somehow I'm not surprised to see it's already listed. The site currently has an [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.digg.com Alexa rank of 11,749], and was in the 7,000s immediately after digg.com was deleted. In contrast to the 1 google hit claimed in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Digg, or even the correction later, citing 8,670 links and 121,000 hits, it now has [http://www.google.com/search?q=link:digg.com 13,800 inbound links] and an astounding [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22digg.com%22 884,000 hits]. This is a far cry from the Alexa-rank-in-the-millions, 10-inbound-link website ad that gets deleted every day. Having an article on Wikipedia will give them little advertising benefit, the anons marring the first VFD were likely entirely independent of each other, and it seems likely that the re-creations (I see 12 in the delete log) were done in good faith. Isn't it time for a reconsideration on VFD? --User:Cryptic User talk:Cryptic 14:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) **I agree, it's not funny when popular sites like this one get deleted while Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naruto.no gets a lot of keep votes. I can't find an explanation. Grue ">User:Grue 17:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I consider Digg to be a site notable enough that it could get a well-written article, but I am not happy with articles whose full text is "Digg is a news site." --User:Mysidia 04:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Looking around, I noticed on Digg: [http://www.digg.com/links/No_Wikipedia_entry_for_Digg_], [http://digg.com/links/The_digg.com_encyclopedia_page_is_up_for_deletion_at_Wikipedia_], and [http://www.digg.com/links/Help_expand_the_Digg_wikipedia_article] This all seems highly irregular to me, kind of like urging people of one large community to raid the Wikipedia, but it suggests what is probably going on here as far as "sockpuppets" go, it may just be a whole bunch of different people from their site coming over here upon their own volition to "fix" ''their'' article about the site they are a member of. Not being familiar with Wikipedia, of course they will not be able to follow Wikipedia's conventions, since they are naive, hence the resulting protection, etc.... --User:Mysidia 05:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ====Ameriphobia==== I was surprised recently to find this article was deleted and the discussion was closed. The archived delete page showed that the main reason was a lack of Google hits for the term. Yet this is incorrect. Google actually shows more results for variations of the term: 169 for Ameriphobia, 112 for Ameriphobic, 208 for Americanophobia, 333 for Americanophobe, 58 for Americanophobic, 914 for Americanphobia That totals 1794, and that is just what google has in their cache (which is not even half of the entire internet by the way). Just checking Wikipedia's "most recent articles" page, one can easily find terms that show low Google counts: 679 for "Spanish Second Division"; 782 for "Extinct Australian animals"; 577 for "Vampire lifestyle" Yet none of these are deleted, presumably because even if these terms themselves are not widely used, they may related to larger themes which are important or popular. I say the same goes for this article. The theme of Ameriphobia is extremely widespread and up for debate. Deletion of this article is obvious partisan and political. My guess is a lot of the Leftists who monopolize Wikipedia are intolerant of divergant political views being presented on Wikipedia, where only fringe stuff like "9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory", "9/11 conspiracy theories", and multiple pages of the like are permitted to be posted. Nice POV double standards. In sum: 1. This term is common in college circles and among conservatives--even used in the New Yorker magazine in 2003. 2. Banning the term would be de facto POV, ie. excluding some kinds of discrimination but not others. 3. The main arguments against it were that it didn't have enough Google hits --which I proved was false, and that it was too POV. But POV topics are not forbidden on Wikipedia, just POV content. This article and any article can be presented in a NPOV way. 4. Why can't people who object to content for poliitical reasons simple edit the articles instead of automatically deleting everything??? 5. Why is crap like 911 conspiracy pages and the like 1) not considered "too POV" 2) not considered "unencyclopedic"? It's obvious that partisan political motives mean that anything that isn't anti-American enough will be banned.I don't appreciate the "when in doubt, delete" philosophy. What a waste of time and effort, and simply because of partisan political bias.User:Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. No, it's ''when in doubt, keep''. That's why a "no consensus" result means ''Keep''. VfU is not the place to express your views on why the original article should be kept; it's a place to discuss articles that were deleted out of turn. This went through a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ameriphobia with an overwhelming consensus to delete, and therefore it was not deleted out of turn. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 19:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Over whelming consensus??? You mean like the 4 or 5 "deletes" with no reasons given? Then comments like "I'm confused by your comment. If it's a common term, why shouldn't Wikipedia document it, even though its usage is POV? If it's common, how is documenting it using Wikipedia as a soapbox? ... So redirect to Anti-Americanism, which it doesn't seem to be any different in usage from.) Nickptar 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" and "Certainly the word deserves documentation. ... ---Isaac R 23:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC) " "Weak delete. ... So my feeling is, no big deal either way. Andrewa 18:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" Again, I can't find a real argument, outside of supposed (and false) Google hits. By the way, if the term is too POV, then Islamophobia should be deleted, right? User:Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ameriphobia. Only one keep vote, nine deletes (including the nomination). Interestingly, at least two of the deletion votes were cast by users who are not only experienced sysops, but who in my experience adhere ''punctiliously'' to the rule of "when in doubt, keep." User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 19:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. I see nothing improper about the deletion process. --User:Carnildo 21:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - VfD vote was valid. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. It may be too early to suggest placing this article on WP:PP as an article protected against recreation, but if the identical article keeps getting recreated and speedied this would be the logical thing to consider. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 05:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. In any case, should the entry exist, it would have to be a mere redirect to Anti-American sentiment. User:Rama 08:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete - it appears once again that invalid argument is being used. All of these votes merely say that the process was "valid". Yet someone yesterday acknowledged that the argument used in nominating for deletion and for the majority of the delete votes was weak -- ie. that Google hits determine if it is a real term or not. But google hits are not a legitimate criteria. So can anyone offer up a valid argument for the deletion? One problem with this supposedly "valid" process is that it is very quick. Not everyone is on Wikipedia on a daily basis. So does this mean that a one-side debate means that something is permanently deleted with no recourse if the delete process (but not the arguments) are "valid"? This process seems highly irrational, ie. logical arguments are not the basis, merely a baroque political process. In sum, I still have been unable to get an argument why it was deleted, other than not enough Google hits (which I proved is false). I sign it now User:Dragonlance 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :~~Unsigned vote from User:217.184.67.137. Anonymous votes do not get counted under the rules for undeletion. --User:Kiand 09:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ *By the way, I tried to put Islamophobia up for VfD but it was closed without discussion. Why was Islamophobia kept ("important issue", "notable" were reasons given) yet Arab dictatorships and Ameriphobia were deleted because "too POV"? Seems like obvious political bias, ie. Lefty Wikiadmins are promoting anti-American views and rigorously deleting anything critical of anti-Americanism. It is interesting to note that the same arguments made for one deletion are summarily dismissed in the case of keeping POV articles popular with the Left! How schizophrenic, biased, arbitrary, prejudiced and irrational can you get?User:Dragonlance 11:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I closed the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamophobia on Islamophobia. It had overwhelming keep consensus, perhaps because "Islamophobia" is a commonly used term. "Ameriphobia" is not commonly used and was deleted as a little used, non-notable neologism. Keep deleted the Ameriphobia article as a valid VfD with reasons neologism, not notable and unencyclopedic. User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 10:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Can you explain why, then, Islamophilia, is up for deletion? Islamophile get 15,000 hits. Why is Islamophobe okay, but Islamophile too POV, not encyclopedic???? Why is Arab dictatorship -- a phrase that gets 8,390 hits, deleted? It's funny, one gets the impression that anything critical of Islam or anti-Americanism is always too POV or obscure, while the craziest 911 conspiracy theories or loaded terms like Islamophobia are always keepers. Funny, isn't it. User:Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Neologism? It has been used by Front Page Magazine (FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2001), appeared in a major American newspaper (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041004-103823-3308r.htm) and even appeared in the venerable New yorker magazine in 2003(http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/030310fa_fact)!User:Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted - totally valid VFD, nominator is just causing trouble in the hope of picking up support. --User:Kiand 11:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : No, I am objecting to systematic bias, and putting forth an argument that no one seems to be able to respond to. :1)Is it too POV? Well this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete] says that is not a good cause for deletion. Official Wikipedia policy. Why is that ignored????? :2)Neologism? It's not my term, but the New Yorker's, and variants of the term appeared in 1800 webpages, as well as a major newspaper. User:Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Read WP:POINT. Because thats what your doing, disrupting the processes of the Wikipedia solely to make a point. --User:Kiand 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: How? I'm discussing the issue here, where I was informed by the admins I should discuss it. But I guess arguing against bias, being critical of Wikipedia and the admins just makes me a trouble maker. Such is the intolerant Wiki way.... I expected too much to think people might think critically and independently. User:Dragonlance 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Arguing against a valid VfD and then arguing against and personally barracking individual users who vote to keep deleted is 'disruption to make a point'. --User:Kiand 11:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: So if it is a "valid VfD" according to your view, it is forbidden for anyone else to object and discuss their view? Is this Wikipedia policy? Then why have this page if such minority view points are forbidden? User:Dragonlance 11:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::This page exists to discuss articles that were ''deleted out of process''. Ameriphobia was deleted legitimately after a valid VfD. --User:Kiand 11:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::: So if a page is deleted based on false arguments and new information comes to light (eg. New Yorker article), it is forbidden to discuss it anywhere???? Is this Wikipolicy? Please point me to the Official Policy stating discussion of "valid VfD" is forbidden. Thanks. User:Dragonlance 11:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Its not forbidden, but flogging the topic like a dead horse when its clear that theres a clear cut concensus to keep it deleted breaks WP:POINT. And thats what you're doing. --User:Kiand 11:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: I was just hoping that anyone could show valid reasons for the deletion (which I wasn't present for). The two reasons given, as I have shown above, were false, ie. discussion. So far nobody has yet been able to, or even try to, give further reasons for the deletion. I guess it is silly of me to expect reasoned arguments and discussion, since that type of thing is just "disruptive" and makes one a problem user. User:Dragonlance 12:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Right, heres some reasons - its neologistic. On mention in an American magazine and a whopping 1800 websites mentioing what, one of 6 spellings - thats not enough to make it anything BUT neologistic. Its also not existed earlier than about 2003. The article that was there was also POV, not saying a better one couldn't be written; but it still wouldn't survive the notablity stage - its not notable. For the same reasons its neologistic - not enough usage of the 'word'--User:Kiand 12:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::: Small correction: Front Page mag. used it in Dec. 2001, so about 4 yrs old. Probably created post-911, just a guess.User:Dragonlance 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :So its 3 and a half years old, and used in under 2000 pages, in ALL its forms combined. If that doesn't define neologistic and not notable, nothing does. --User:Kiand 12:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: If 3 1/2 years is too new for Wikipedia, why all the 911 conspiracy stuff? 3 1/2 years is a fairly long time in our media culture, in fact. User:Dragonlance 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Because they're in common usage. 'ameriphobia' -isn't- in common use. A few media references and under 2000 google hits show this. :::There are around 7 times as many google hits for -me- (as a person) and I'm nowhere near notable enough for an article. I trust the Google Test. --User:Kiand 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: If it is simply Google hits, then why was islamofascism (70,900 hits & widely used) deleted & redirected, while Islamophobia was kept? Seems like systematic bias, ie. anything anti-American is kept, anything critical of anti-US prejudice is automatically deleted. But I suppose I have no right to point out such obvious political bias -- the same political bias behind the VfD of Ameriphobia. If Wikipedia was NPOV, there would be a page called Phobias, listing all these terms -- homophobia, francophobia, islamophobia, and ameriphobia, etc and the arguments pro and con. Instead we have some terms deleted and others kept, per political bias of admins. User:Dragonlance 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Actually, there would be no such page. "pro and con" pages are ALWAYS pov-fests, and always get VfD'ed. Accusing political bias where none exists isn't going to get you much to any support, btw. --User:Kiand 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Keep deleted - valid VfD. User:Axon 11:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted Perfectly valid VFD. It's up to individual users whether they wish to use the Google test or not, and if so how much weight to give it. It's pretty silly to say that people's votes shouldn't have counted just because you disagree with them! Starblind">User:Starblind 11:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) : I didn't say that. I said some didn't give any reason at all. Others gave weak or ambiguous support. Ultimately only two arguments exist on that page. One is the google one and the other is NPOV. Yet Offical Wikipedia policy says the latter is no good reason to delete. User:Dragonlance 12:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, and there's no requirement for voters to give a reason, either. It's nice to know what each voter is thinking, but there's no rule that says they must give a reason. It's also true that POV is not generally a reason to delete... if I added "George Washington is awesome!" to the George Washington article, that wouldn't get the article VfDed. However, some people will vote to delete if a topic seems inherently POV, especially if we already have an NPOV article on the same subject or a very similar one (see Anti-American sentiment). Anyway, please do not get confused by the whole "voting" thing. We aren't really "voting" in the common sense of the word, we're trying to establish consensus. It's up to the admin who closes the issue to determine whether consensus has been made to delete the article or not. In this case, I don't think that any admin could possibly look at that VfD and say "Gee, they obviously want that article to be kept." The consensus was clearly and blatantly in favour of deletion. Starblind">User:Starblind 13:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) ====Lucky Ticket Casino==== What happened to my article? I created it at Lucky Ticket Casino. :It was apparently deleted as advertising. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 06:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :To the anon, 67.185.106.33, who posted this query. You have the right to make a formal request for undeletion of this article, but I strongly suggest that you not bother. The article certainly looks like advertising to me. :Articles are sometimes "speedy deleted" (i.e. simply deleted by a sysop without discussion), or they may be "nominated for deletion" in which case they get a review and a discussion on the Votes for Deletion page. Yours was "speedy deleted." :Advertising is a valid reason for deletion. But, technically, it is not a valid reason for ''speedy'' deletion. So if you were to request undeletion, you would probably get a majority vote to undelete. But the article would then automatically be nominated for deletion, where it would receive an overwhelming vote for deletion as advertising. :Whatever you do, do ''not'' simply attempt to re-create the article. :People often get the idea that they can use Wikipedia as a way of promoting their product, service, or website, but this idea is mistaken. If this is what you're trying to do, don't try; it will just get you and a lot of Wikipedians irritated. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ====Nicholas Stern (Titan Eagle)==== As the initial page was first suggested to be deleted on basis of noteriety, which was argued against, the second and I'm assuming effective reasoning for its deletion was that it took up the space of a former Economist which had been deleted prior to this article. The more apt title (now being free) was then pasted into by the (Titan Eagle) Nicholas Stern. As the sparse economists page has now been restored, I see no reason for the other Nicholas Stern page to be "speedily deleted" as long as the qualifier of "Titan Eagle", as he is AKA, is included in the pages title. In addition I will include a redirect for the econmists page, as was first included in the previous article and qualifier. In regards to noteriety its hard to defend an "outsider" musician as they are typically not well known or liked by the masses, however I feel that Nicholas Stern (Titan Eagle) is a personification of outsider through his awkward machismo and obliviousness to common music style. He has been featured repeatedly in outsider literature and outsider pages including this fresh page as of last week... http://www.trickmanterry.com/slapshotrock.html Aside from general noteriety, I've also noticed many pages being deleted on the basis of "google searches" which I find kind of ridiculous. But if there is to be such a thing, I feel its only fair to have a finite amount known to people before they post, so that before they write the article they can check beforehand to see the amount of hits, and that these hits measure up to Wikipedia standards. User:Aubin 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - Valid VfD vote on original article under the name "Nicholas Stern" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nicholas Stern - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Which vote for the original were you talking about? The vote for noteriety or the vote for taking up the space of the economist? User:Aubin 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted Small number of voters, but still a perfectly valid VfD. I don't think we'll ever have a finite amount of Google hits to keep an article, as you request. For one thing, it's pretty wasy to cheat at Google. Most of the time, anything under 500 hits or so is considered pretty low. However, a high Google score does not guarantee that something will be kept. Starblind">User:Starblind 23:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) * Then why use it as a basis? It just seems kind of strange that it can be used as validation for deletion, but if there is a standard applied to it that would require the knowledge of a google count, then that can't happen. Aside from that, I don't understand the rational behind a site for learning about things saying that if the knowledge isnt already widely known, then it can't be learned. User:Aubin 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Valid VfD process. Arguments such as notability are arguments for VfD, not VfU (which is only for stuff deleted out of process). --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 02:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *What are some valid arguments for VfU? Because the pro-keep deletion is referencing the same arguments from VfD. User:Aubin 03:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) **See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Generally speaking, either the original VfD or decision to delete itself have to have been procedurally invalid; or circumstances must have ''substantially'' changed in such a way that renders the original grounds for deletion inapplicable, such that a recreation would not be at all subject to the defects complained of in the original article. Both of these reasons are construed very narrowly (especially the changed circumstances argument), and the burden of persuasion is on the one requesting undeletion. User:Postdlf 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Original VfD was valid, and nothing stated above undermines the conclusions of the voters as to the subject's nonnotability. The google test is used on a case-by-case basis—it is not an absolute threshold that a subject must meet. It helps to make comparisons of notability within a particular subject matter, and take some account of the attention a subject has received. I think it's particularly apt to use for musicians, because that's a subject matter that you'd expect there to be plenty of internet coverage of, through fan pages, album and concert reviews, and online sales of albums, tickets, and merchandise. A contemporary musician that has made no inroad into the WWW can't be said to have left much of a mark yet. User:Postdlf 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) **And of course a musician with no albums that weren't self-produced, and who has no more claim to fame than a review posted on a do-it-yourself website about a public access television performance, has truly left no mark. User:Postdlf 04:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Fair enough. However if he does end up becoming more notable in the future is there a possibilty of another review? User:Aubin 04:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Yes, as long as he manages to meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. User:Postdlf 04:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted. Anonymous User:82.123.12.13 (users only edits) has recreated the article at Nicholas Stern (musician). How blatant is that? User:JamesBurns 07:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===June 14, 2005=== ====List of Chinese tongs==== On June 13 I moved the New York Tongs, as well as the San Francisco Tongs, from the List of street gangs onto a separate list, as explained on the page history; however it seems to have since been deleted. Although it was admittedly a scant list, of which I had thought another user with a bit more knowledge of the topic might expand it, I can't find a record of it on the Votes for deletion log. User:209.213.71.78 19:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Comment: Could an admin take a look at the content? According to the deletion log, this article was deleted in 21:08, 13 Jun 2005 because: ''(nonsense)''. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Hmm..that's odd. It was a fairly organized list, although a bit incomplete, so I'm not sure how it could have been mistaken or confused for patent nonsence (at least as defined as random characters, etc.). User:209.213.71.78 20:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) I believe it was deleted (not by me) because it was simply a list of red links with no real context. --User:Khaosworks 21:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted - "''This is a world list of Chinese Tongs.''" then a list of 9 random names (some didn't even seem like names: "''four brothers tong''") - no context given. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 21:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*Texture, while I certainly agree with your reasoning (particularly with someone with little knowlage of the subject), these are legitimate groups. I suppose had I been given a bit more time to expand the list I could have provided references and a more descriptive introduction. Given there are at least a few mentions of these Tongs on other articles, such as the Tong wars, Little Pete, or several entries in the Timeline of organized crime, I hadn't anticipated it being deleted so quickly. User:209.213.71.78 23:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :**The biggest problem with this article was lack of reasoned content. Nothing in this list gave any context or reason for the article to exist. Might I suggest if this is your starting point that creating an article on User:209.213.71.78 would give you time to make it into something worthwhile prior to releasing it as an article? Since there is both no context and no linkable article for each entry, this idea in progress should not be an article as it stands. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 14:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Content was: * New York o Four Brothers Tong o Hip Song Tong o Kim Lou Wi Saw Tong o Low Hee Tong o On Leong Tong * San Francisco o Bing Kong Tong o Jung Ying Tong o Suey Don Tong o Suey Ying Tong All of them were red links. To an English speaker, it does sound like nonsense. Why don't you start by creating articles on each of them, and then when the links are blue, you can try again? Keep deleted for now, but I might change my mind if there are real articles. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 22:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) :*That may be true however I don't think I'm qualified to write more then a general stub. The purpose of the list, which was to differentiate from the list of street gangs, was to encourage someone who might be better suited to write on these articles. You might want to consider merging it with the main Tong article or at least revert the street gangs list in any case. I'm sorry for the trouble and thanks for the help. User:209.213.71.78 23:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted Starblind">User:Starblind 01:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) *Keep deleted. Thanks for the content, RickK. Some of those names sound vaguely familiar, so I wouldn't classify it as nonsense, but a bunch of red links does not an article make. If some of these articles were to be created in the future, I'd support such a list, but I would much prefer an English translation followed by the Chinese phonetics. For example (completely fictitious), Vampire Tong (Hopping corpse Tong). Such an entry would seem less nonsensical to the non-Chinese reader. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Yeah, I feel the same way, that was what I was trying to say but you said it better. :) User:RickKUser talk:RickK 23:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ***hahaha... when I said I didn't think it was nonsense, it wasn't in reply to your comment, it was in response to the original reason for deletion. :-) --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 19:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete. Separating the tongs from other street gangs is a rather appropriate move, as the history of organized crime in China is far different from that of the random street gangs of the US. Also, while it may seem like nonsense to the casual reader due to no context, (a) To those with some background knowledge, these names are meaningful, even as red links and (b) As a 'list' article, little context should be needed beyond providing a link at the top to the primary article on the Tongs. One thing I would suggest, however, is to restrict the list to those Tongs operating in China. Random Chinese-American street toughs in a gang are a far cry from the complex and organized Tongs of Hong Kong and Shanghai. User:LordAmeth 15:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*Comment While it doesn't look like this article will be kept it should probably be noted that these particular Tongs are fairly old, most involved in the Tong wars of the late 19th century and early 20th century, and are certainly as notable as the Five Points (Manhattan) street gangs. I certainly wouldn't classify these groups on the same level of a modern street gang such as The Ghost Dragons. The American equivalent of the Chinese Triads, these were highly organized and secretive organizations that carried out full scale gang wars in cities such as New York and San Francisco for well over a quarter of a century. I'd suggest moving it to the Tong wars article (although a bit more detailed). User:64.12.117.10 05:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete-Useful for crime prevention and awareness.--User:Jondel 01:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, create some of the articles first. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 01:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) ====GAP Project==== Article has 2 copy vio deletes. :First delete was wrong because the material was PD and still is. I wrote it myself but I cant proove that so nevermind the first copy vio. Or the canadian government is violating copyrights. [http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html] ::~~I am not arguing to restore this one because..~~ :::~~1)I have already written the page~~ :::~~2)I dont care~~ :The second copy vio is nothing close to the alleged page. Hence a copy vio cannot be the case. The page was declared a copy vio and was deleted in 5-10 minutes of this. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Undelete --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) **The version dated May 3 has direct word-for-word copies from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm, just as the copyvio boilerplate indicated. That version is nothing like http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html. There is a stub now. If you want to rewrite it ''in your own words'', please do so. Keep deleted. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) ***Look I am sick of dealing with this I wrote the article with my own words from scratch and that was declared copy vio. I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd. I want the later version restored. No copy vio is the case. I dont enjoy writing same articles to be deleted without being read. COMPARE the latter version please. There are two copy vio cases. First one, I ma not discussing. Second is definately not copy vio. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Keep deleted. Copyvio. User:Gamaliel 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) **~~Did you compare the first or second copy vio case? --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ *Comment: Can someone give a quick comparison between the two deleted versions and the two web versions? --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Case withdrawn. Page was restored. Anyone can compare. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 13:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) * It would appear that User:Coolcat has unilaterally restored the last version that was removed as a copyvio. Should be deleted again unless copyvio case is cleared. — User:Davenbelle 07:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) **I have reverted it. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 06:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) **This is not the first time that Coolcat has caused trouble through his dishonest use of copyrighted material and his inability or unwillingness to communicate clearly about the issue (see this earlier discussion on User_talk:Postdlf/Archive4#Copyright_Diagnosis_Murder for an example; the article discussed there was also one he later tried to get undeleted).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&oldid=13144800#Diagnosis:_Murder] I think we need a long-term solution for his conduct. User:Postdlf 15:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Comment: on the talk page CoolCat claims original authorship of this text, implying it's a GFDL release by himself (while explaining his desire to be anonymous). Later, User:ugen64 finds some evidence that some of the text might have a U.S. Gov public domain origin. CoolCat then picks up on the PD angle. :*Questions; :# why doesn't Coolcat know or say that the text in question is PD until ugen64 points it out (assuming that it really is PD)? :# if CoolCat really wants to remain anonymous then why does he claim authorship of text that will eventually reveal his identity? :This just doesn't make sense. :I'm also getting fed up with CoolCat's administrator shopping. Several times now various administrators have interceded with the copyright violation listing process. Or questioned me or re-evaluated past CoolCat copyright violations that I processed (Silsor, Burgundavia, Frazzydee, ugen64). When I try to find the relevant discussions between CoolCat and these administrators I can't. I certainly don't begrudge these administrator's actions, but I'd like to know what CoolCat is saying behind my back regarding these copyright violations, since it reflects on me and it keeps wasting my time, over and over and over... --User:Duk 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Finally, CoolCat says that the second deletion as a copyright violation was not right, that it wasn't close to the noted source. Take a look a the paragraph starting with the sentence that I noted on the talk page (you need to look at the deleted page). I don't know how CoolCat can claim this isn't copied. --User:Duk 07:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted unless a PD source is verified, then note this source, otherwise it is plagerism. Oh, by the way, this will also reveal CoolCat's identity ;) --User:Duk 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deleted unless PD source is verified. User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 16:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Votes for undeletion

==Misc Conversation== Martin, I thank you for the undeletions. I trust that your decisions on these pages are good ones, and I won't challenge them. However, I still consider the process you have been applying is not the proper one. Let me remind you that non sysop can not see deleted pages. Let's consider the person challenging a hasty deletion has seen the page and consider the page should be kept. He then comes here and add it to the list. The process you have been applying here consisted essentially in reviewing "yourself" the page, and taking a "godlike" decision over the future of this page. I think this is deeply wrong. Remember, the decision of deleting this page was a unilateral decision from a sysop. Then you add your unilateral decision - as a sysop - to keep it undeleted. That means, whatever my own request, my opinion as an editor is worth nothing. Why should sysop opinions have more weight than mine on a topic ? This is *very very* unwiki since in Wikipedia editors are supposed to have equal rights in edition. In deciding yourself unilaterally, you reject the opinion of the non-sysop, and you reject the very notion of consensus when there is a disagreement. When two people discuss an issue, a consensus can not be reached if one has preeminence over another in the end, should there still be disagreement. Even in a voting system (which I personally disapprove of - in particular when only a couple of people are involved), one "against", and one "for" is a 50% case, and need more input than just a unilateral decision from one of the two. Hence, the option you followed is neither consensual, nor democratic. If this is the way wikipedia works, I think m:Power structure should be edited. A sysop is there to clean the place, to ensure the rules are respected, to be a pilar for coherance conservation. The sysop is not there to decide which content is right and which content is not right with little respect of the rules, right ? Otherwise, the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion would be a protected page, and decision over deletions would be acceptable per sysops only. You might say "right, just keep it on the list, and wait till another sysop takes the pain to undelete it for you". Given the pain of the undeletion process (so I understood, the french wiki does have a relatively small number of deleted articles, so this is not too bad), it is very unlikely, and very unefficient that two people do the same process one after another. Better do it only one time. The other point in refuse of consensual decision is that with that process, only sysops will ever have the opportunity to give their opinion, and choose to restore or not, never other regular users, since they will never see the page content. In short, I think the process applied on that page, should be precisely the reverse of the process apply on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Which is a place where everyone, sysop or non sysop have the right to give their opinion, and where opinions of people have the same weight, whether black, white, male, female, young, old, sysop or non sysop. Right now, here, I can give my opinion, but a regular user opinion has *no* weight against a sysop opinion. This is humiliating and very wrong. I hope you will then understand it is not satisfying. Idea : I have the feeling one reason why you feel like taking a "godlike" decision is that some undeletions would become permanents (for example, I suppose restoring an historical version of an existing article cannot be later un-processed - case of the three articles you restored yesterday). Why not in these cases where you feel it is likely the "community" decision (that you, and I, and everybody feeling concerned) will be to keep it undeleted, copy paste the content in a temp page associated with this one, so people can judge the content without potentially restoring something wrong ? User:Anthere :You say: "A sysop is there to clean the place, to ensure the rules are respected, to be a pilar for coherance conservation." This isn't true at all. A sysop isn't there to "do" anything. If a sysop wants to carry on in exactly the same way they did before they were a sysop, they're quite entitled to do so. If a sysop wants to do nothing but make new articles on Albanian kings and have nothing to do with anything else, that's fine. Being a sysop doesn't carry with it any extra responsibilities as such. Therefore, why don't you become a sysop? If everyone is a sysop, and new users are made sysops once it becomes clear they're not simple vandals, these sorts of problems don't matter so much (I'm not saying they are solved, but they are lessened). You're saying how sysops should handle this page and complaining they're not doing it right - fine, but if you think something is being done incorrectly, the best way to deal with that, and the WikiWay, is for you yourself to do it the way you think it should be done, not demand that others do it that way. Therefore, become a sysop. --User:Camembert ::You are quite right to say "if you want to do it, do it yourself". Except that if *I* want to do it myself, I will just have to tell Eloquence to make me sysop, restore the file, and forget all about it.
::But if...dunno...Little Fat Buddha wants to have an article restored because he thinks it was interesting and deleted without community agreement, he won't have any chance to be heard for he will perhaps not be made sysop even if he ask. When something is wrong in the way a country is managed, a regular citizen will first want to have a way for his opinion to be heard and will hope to have impact though voting for a president or another, perhaps. I don't think the good answer if he ask for more transparency and equality, is to tell him, "become the president, then the country can be ruled the way you want". ant : Anthere, I do understand (really, I do), but I'm somewhat stymied by the system here - non-sysops can't see deleted pages - that's a fact of the universe (or rather a fact of the wikipedia software) that I can't fully work around. That's why I'm so in favour of a meta:deletion management redesign. ::Si. But possibly I will be a grand mother by the time it is implemented :-) : Your idea is a good one, though. There's one minor hitch: I can't copy and paste the source to deleted pages, the way the system currently works. What I ''can'' do, though, is undelete the page and move it into a subpage of this page. Would that help? ::Hum. I had not realised. Yes, indeed, it is not possible. Crumbs. : An alternative would be to undelete all pages upon request here, and then immediately list them on VfD for further discussion. Which of these options do you think would be better? I'm trying to do the Right Thing here - but it's not easy! User:MyRedDice ::Here is a Good Option, since it was precisely the process which they should have gone through. Also a good idea since it somehow makes forget the article did not go through the proper process (it is gentler on the deleter, right ? hence gentler on the community as it does not focus on the error, but rather on the content). Also a good idea since it make sense that questionable articles are all listed at the right place. It should be indicated here when they are undeleted and listed on vfd. The name of the sysop who did the deletion should not be indicated on vfd, just a statement that the article was listed here. Is that acceptable ? : Excellent :) User:MyRedDice ---- Hello. I'd just like to say that I think this page was a brilliant idea! Which of you came up with it? I think undeleting things is good. :) I haven't contributed to the page yet, though, as I must admit it rather confuses me... How does it work, exactly? Can I, as a sysop, undelete things that I think shouldn't have been deleted? Or should I put them on the "votes for undeletion" page and then wait for ''another'' sysop to undelete them, so I can't be accused of doing anything unilaterally? Or does it not matter either way? -- User:Oliver Pereira 17:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC) well, it came up from discussions on ~~Wikipedia talk:Censorship~~. Yours is a good question. Until now, I put a lot of the stuff to undelete. And usually Martin did the job of undeletion. So...User:anthere : Ah, thanks for the link. I missed that discussion. Well, maybe I'll just put things on the page and make Martin do all the hard work. ;) No, well, I suppose if I undelete something and then put it on "votes for deletion" again with my argument against its having been deleted, then no-one can accuse me of being sneaky. Everyone will get annoyed at the cluttering up of the "votes for deletion" page, though. :) -- User:Oliver Pereira 13:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC) :: You could counter the clutter by finally making that wikipedia:deleted suspected copyright infringement that people have been muttering about for a little while. :) :: I'd say... feel free to unilaterally undelete if you're feeling bold, but add the page to "votes for deletion". If you're feeling less bold, you might add it here first. User:MyRedDice 13:24 19 Jun 2003 (UTC) ---- I have just made the following change: :''Having this page does allow sysops to be a little more meta:be bold in deleting articles, but it should be noted that the undeletion process remains painful, so care should be taken.'' Became :''Having this page does not allow sysops to ignore the rules set out in Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages. The undeletion process remains painful, so care should be taken.'' I hope this is not controversial. User:GrahamN 15:07 18 Jun 2003 (UTC) That looks better than the old version to me. :) I was a bit uneasy about that statement, and I was thinking of changing it myself. It seemed to be giving sysops permission to pay less attention to the rules, which I don't think would be a good thing. -- User:Oliver Pereira 13:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC) : I'm fine with that, Graham :) User:MyRedDice 13:24 19 Jun 2003 (UTC) :I am equally happy with it. :-) ant ---- Martin, I don't think we are allowed to delete people. :) But then, on the other hand, I always kind of wanted to ''undelete'' Mozart and get him to write down symphonies #42 to 84 for me. :) User:Tannin : Old Wikipedians don't die - they're just moved to meta. :) User:MyRedDice ---- I don't understand the bit that says, "Don't list an article here ''merely'' because it was deleted without proper process." Surely that's the ''best'' reason for listing it here? If an article has gone through the proper process, there will rarely be any reason to undelete it, as far as I can see. At least, if it has been listed on "Votes for deletion" for a week, since that's usually long enough to register any protests. On the other hand, I can't think of any reason why an article ''shouldn't'' be undeleted if it ''hasn't'' gone through the proper process. What's your reasoning here...? -- User:Oliver Pereira 15:36 14 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- The "subduction zone" ordering of this page is giving me a headache. Adding to the edges and deleting from the middle seems such a strange way to do things. Can we please change over to ordinary chronological ordering, adding to the bottom, like every other page on the wiki except Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? -- User:Tim Starling 08:29 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) : sure. I've pondered it myself, but never got round to re-ordering stuff. User:MyRedDice ::just put everything in an archive...then the filling could start anew from the bottom. What about also adding that undeleting can been done boldly just as deleting can be boldly, without either of them implying sysop power abuse ? User:Anthere ---- I disagree with the idea of relisting entries on VFD after they are undeleted. It fractures the discussion and makes it difficult to work out what's going on. Since we now have ~90 sysops, we should expect sysop edit wars over deletion to become more common, and the current system handles them very poorly. I propose that when an article is listed here, the discussion from VFD should be quoted in full. Of course it can be archived to the article talk page if need be. The discussion can then continue with reference to previous talk on the matter. Many iterations of deletion/undeletion can take place while the VFUD discussion is occurring, but the entry should only be removed from VFUD ''when discussion has ceased and a consensus is reached''. -- User:Tim Starling 03:01 16 Jul 2003 (UTC) P.S. I'm not saying that deletion/undeletion wars are a good thing, just that they have happened, and will probably continue to happen, so we shouldn't close our eyes and ignore them. -- User:Tim Starling 03:12 16 Jul 2003 (UTC) : I'd take the opposite approach. Sysop wars over deletion/undeletion should not happen, and if they do happen then both sysops should be immediately demoted, in my opinion. User:MyRedDice 19:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- Actually, this page doesn't necessarily seem to work as described it the paragraph I tagged. If a sysop sees your request but doesn't trust you, he or she isn't likely to honor your request for undeletion. There doesn't seem to be a policy for the "lack of trust" issue. -- User:Cyan 18:39, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) :that is problematic indeed. Must say there, that a couple of undeletion I practiced for some people lead my mail box to explode under critics. This is tiresome and unproductive. Do you have an option for undeleting sysops not to be bugged by non-trusting sysops ? User:Anthere :: Tell 'em that if they don't like the policy, they should come here and suggest a better one. User:MyRedDice 19:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) Just noting that the List of Heterosexuals have been listed here for close to two weeks. Two users has since voted for undeletion against none. Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? User:BL 17:21, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC) :It's not clear that Lir still wants the page undeleted. I sent him a copy after he provided me with an email address, and he hasn't followed up on the matter. If you want it undeleted permanently, perhaps you should make a separate request. If you want it undeleted so that you can view it, as Lir did, I will happily send you a copy if you provide me with an email address to send it to. Cheers, User:Cyan 19:26, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC) == Discussion of articles == There seems to be a lot of discussion on "Votes for undeletion" about the merits (or lack thereof) of the Sept. 11th articles. I think that we should establish that Vfu should not be used for discussion of the content of the articles being proposed for undeletion. That would be unfair, since most Wikipedians can no longer read it. (Yes, they can make requests to sysops to be privately e-mailed or whatever, but that takes more effort than a lot of people can be bothered with, so the process is not very open in practice even if it is in theory.) I think this page should be used only for discussing whether or not there is sufficient reason for the case to be reopened. For example, I think that casting doubt on the process by which the articles were deleted is reason enough to reopen the case. Discussion of the merits of the articles should then take place on Vfd after undeletion, rather than on Vfu, in my opinion. -- User:Oliver Pereira 03:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) :Anyone can ask for a copy of a deleted article on VfU, I've done this once and it arrived in my email box in minutes, so my impression on a very small sample space is that the system works well. :But perhaps there should be two pages for undeletion, one for pages deleted by proper listing in VfD, the other for pages summarily deleted or allegedly deleted without proper process. Reason: For articles deleted after discussion on VfD, the onus of proof should be on those who want the article undeleted, to reopen the discussion; On the other hand, for articles which have not enjoyed this period of discussion for whatever reason, the onus of proof should be on those who want it to remain deleted, as the discussion has not yet taken place and should. User:Andrewa 08:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) :Casting doubt on the process is enough to undelete? No, I disagree with this. People are proposing that articles be undeleted when there was a nearly unanimous vote to delete. Making articles ping-pong back and forth between VfD and VfU whenever a single person "casts doubt" is a bad idea. User:Daniel Quinlan 17:14, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC) ::Hmmm. It depends what you mean by "casting doubt on the process". If the process was followed, then someone objecting to the process is not a case for undeleting... that's a non-terminating loop as you say. But if there is doubt that the process was followed, I'd say undelete. The most common scenario for this is that something is instantly deleted that in hindsight needs discussion. This discussion should then take place on VfD, and the article needs to be undeleted for this to happen. The only time extended discussion should happen in VfU is when there's some reason for not undeleting, such as privacy concerns. ::What we're after is a system that deletes trash and keeps useful stuff all with a minimum of overhead for both sysops and contributors generally. It needs to be robust, that is allow decisions to be reversed easily in need. Which is pretty much what we've got IMO. The main problem I see is overuse of VfD, when eg the article could have been instantly made a useful redirect or a useful stub. Wikipedia:Cleanup is addressing this, perhaps sometimes undeleted articles should be listed there rather than straight to VfD? Or does this already happen? I haven't seen a case but I'm not all that regular here. User:Andrewa 20:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) :::If something is deleted "out of process", then that can be instantly undeleted. If something has gone through VfD and the decision made to delete it, it should not be undeleted without agreement being reached here first that it should be. Otherwise, you will just get one person who thinks nothing should ever be deleted casting doubt on everything that is deleted, regardless of what consensus was reached at VfD. I also think that if anything is undeleted for any reason, then that must be (re-)listed on VfD. Obviously the person who deleted it is voting that it be deleted, so their view should be taken into account. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 20:39, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) ---- How long do these things need to be here? There are things that have been here for weeks. User:RickK 07:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) :I've moved some of them to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted. I think 2 weeks is usually going to be long enough. User:AngelaUser talk:Angela 08:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) ==Postwar Surrealism== Although in some cases it has been, may have been, or has arguably been justified, there is a tendency to delete articles having to do with post-World War II or contemporary surrealism. This tendency should be looked at more closely in future. --User:Daniel C. Boyer 15:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==Kobe Bryant's accuser's name== We don't have a consensus on publishing the name yet, even on the Kobe Bryant page. It's highly controversial, and we have at least two versions of the deleted article available without the name. That should be sufficient to evaluate the undeletion issue. People looking for this issue (it's reported on Wikipedia:Goings-on, for example) only know to look for the issue, and may not recognize it if it's listed under the name. --User:Michael Snow 01:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) :We don't have a consensus on removing it either. Until then we should use standard practices, which includes a link to the actual page we're discussing, and the complete uncensored page. User:Anthony DiPierro 02:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::We don't have a consensus either way; you're right. Until then we should do the conservative and respectful thing. Standard practices are just that; they're not hard-and-fast rules. Everybody understands what page we're talking about without needing to use the name. Let the discussion play out. User:Moink 02:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::The conservative thing to do is to do what we always do. I don't see how this is an issue of respect. Anyone who does a quick google search for "kobe bryant accuser" will immediately find the name of the accuser. User:Anthony DiPierro 02:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::::Anthony, this isn't a standard case, so standard guidelines might not necessarily apply. - User:Seth Ilys 02:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::::They might not (in this case, they do, but that's a different question), but until there is consensus on whether different rules should apply, we should go by the standard rules. User:Anthony DiPierro 02:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::::::This is a unique case. At least while this discussion is still going on, I don't believe the name should be there - why not stick with something neutral? User:Ambivalenthysteria 03:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::::::How is the page supposed to be undeleted if the name of the page isn't even listed? There is nothing neutral. You either list the name of the page, or you don't list the name of the page. Hmm, maybe that's a compromise. Move the page to "Kobe Bryant's accuser" and remove the references to the name. then list the page on VfD and start a vote on the talk page about a rename and whether the name should be included. User:Anthony DiPierro 03:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::::::::I agree with this compromise. We should leave the name out until the issue is decided. User:Moink 03:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::::::::The name would still be in the history, however, unless it was subsequently deleted by consensus on VfD. User:Anthony DiPierro 03:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::::::::::Fine with me. User:Ambivalenthysteria 03:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::::::::::This doesn't appear to have been done yet. User:Anthony DiPierro 00:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::::::::::::Ok, I want to make sure we all agree on what we're doing before I do it. What I think I'm doing is using that archived copy that someone has somewhere in their user space (somebody point me to where if they remember), moving it to Kobe Bryant's accuser, editing it so that it makes sense without the name, and then having all conversation about publishing the name on that page's talk page. We'll put a note on the village pump etc so that all interested parties can participate in the discussion. In the meantime we'll remove the name from here and wherever else it's mentioned. User:Moink 00:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::::::::::::I went ahead and moved the page from PCB21's user space. User:Moink 01:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::::::::::::::That page doesn't have the author information in it. The original page needs to be the one that is moved. User:Anthony DiPierro 01:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Reorienting back to left :We do not retain copyright violation information. We delete the article and allow it to be recreated. If Wikipedia decides that the accusers name is not appropriate then there is nothing wrong with deleting the article and allowing it to be recreated. - User:Texture 02:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::Wikipedia is legally required to remove copyright information which they know about. They are not legally required to remove this woman's name. But more importantly, Wikipedia is legally required, by copyright law (via the GFDL), to maintain the information on the authors. This is not the case with a copyright violation, because the infringing content is not copied and pasted into the new page. User:Anthony DiPierro 02:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Why 10 days?== I don't like the ten day period and the "ends this date" header at the top of each article. I'd rather we took a more flexible approach. Wnen there is clearly no consensus to undelete, we should remove entries earlier than ten days to keep the page short and relavent. When there is more argument we should leave the entry longer to see if agreement can be reached. I would rather people use thier judgement as to when to remove entries rather than have a rigid timeframe. Thoughts anyone? User:Theresa knott 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Ten days is what is stipulated in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. It's by no means a hard-and-fast limit, but it's the outside time limit for when there is an ongoing discussion. If there is a clear decision earlier, then it can be handled earlier. I think it's still a good idea to leave the request listed for the full ten days, though, even if it has already been dealt with. - User:UtherSRG 16:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::The policy lists 10 days since people are likely to see this page less often than they see VfD, so the time was doubled to allow enough people to vote on the articles listed here. I think 10 days was more of a suggested minimum though, rather than an absolute rule. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 21:50, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) ::It probably doesn't need to be as long as 10 days now. That policy was written at a time when there were very few people aware of this page, so it needed 10 days before enough people voted. If there are enough voters to see where the consensus lies earlier than this, then the pages may as well be dealt with before the end of 10 days. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 19:27, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC) == More Significant Sources? == If an article previously went through the deletion process and was deleted, in part on the basis that the subject was too obscure, and was not mentioned in sources of sufficiently wide distribution, and subsequently the subject was so dealt with, should it be listed on pages for undeletion? Example: Daniel C. Boyer was previously deleted, but he is now listed in the 2005 edition of ''Who's Who in America.'' --User:65.174.34.14 18:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Yes. This is no guarantee that the article will be undeleted, but being listed in Who's Who is certainly reasonable grounds for initiating the Vfu process. - User:UtherSRG 18:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Note: he will now be listed in the 2006 "Who's Who in the World" as well as the 2006 edition of "Who's Who in America". --User:141.219.44.179 19:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC) ::Did either become notable at some point? Last I saw, it was just a scam to get people to buy an overly expersive book with their name in it. 04:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC) == VfD format for VfU? == *Is there any chance VfU will move to the nice template system we have on VfD? --User:Improv 14:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) **Seems completely unnecessary. The VfU nominators aren't nearly as rabid as the deletionists. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 14:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ***Perhaps because the vast majority of original deletions were actually valid, and therefore not worth challenging. User:Ambi 15:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ****Since that's an untrue statement, it can't possibly be the reason. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 15:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) *****''sigh'' Perhaps Ambi doesn't realise that we could quite legitimately list all schools, for example, on VfU, on the grounds that there is no consensus for their deletion, because in just about every case several editors ask for them to be kept, but we don't, because we are, as you suggest, not as rabid as the deletionists. It seems that if you do not push your POV hard, some take it that you do not hold it seriously. User:Dr Zen 03:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) ***** It could also be because on the VfU the two-thirds consensus rule works against the radical inclusionists, instead of for them, the way it does on the VfD page. If a page has been deleted, it means that it couldn't even muster one-third of the votes to be kept. Given that in all but the crystal clear cases, there are always several almost automatic votes to keep, a deleted article has to have been pretty bad, or on a very unnotable subject, to have been deleted. In other words, notwithstanding your posturing, the reason you don't see a lot of articles being nominated for undeletion is that everybody realizes that the nominations would fail, unless there was some significant information that was not available to the original voters. --User:BM 00:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) ******There is no two-thirds consensus rule, and certainly not on VfU. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 04:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) *******True. In fact, there is only an "Administrator's discretion" rule. User:Snowspinner 04:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) ********Must be a new rule. There was no such rule a few months ago. Of course, admins have the technical ability to do pretty much whatever they want, and admins generally are very hesitant to reverse actions of other admins, so there is kind of a de facto rule that admins can do whatever they want. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 14:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) *********Admins can't do whatever they want. However, they get the task of deciding whether a vote has consensus on VfD and VfU. You're right that there's not a 2/3 rule. For example, administrators can delete articles with less than 2/3 support for deletion when they believe votes were cast by sockpuppets, or, as in a recent case, by Neo-Nazis flooding Wikipedia to try to add POV to the project. User:Snowspinner 14:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) **********''Admins can't do whatever they want.'' I think we both understand the truth of that statement. Admins can do whatever they want, but they might be reversed, or they might be deadminned, etc. ''However, they get the task of deciding whether a vote has consensus on VfD and VfU.'' According to whom? There's no rule saying that, in fact, the rules explicitly say that any user can decide that there is no consensus for deletion and clean up the VfD vote. ''For example, administrators can delete articles with less than 2/3 support for deletion when they believe votes were cast by sockpuppets, or, as in a recent case, by Neo-Nazis flooding Wikipedia to try to add POV to the project.'' They can delete any article for any reason at all. They should only be deleting articles for VfD reasons if there is rough consensus. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 15:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) ********** Yes I am well aware that the notion that "consensus means 2/3" is not cast in stone. However, an admin who suddenly decided that a VfD consensus was a simple majority plus himself, would be in hot water pretty fast, as he would be if he had different ideas than customary about which votes to count. As for VfU versus VfD. On VfD, a consensus is required to delete. On VfU, a consensus is required to undelete: the burden is shifted. An admin who decided to undelete an article without a consensus to undelete it would also be in hot water pretty fast, as he would be if he decided that consensus on VfU was a simple majority, unlike on VfD. --User:BM 16:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) *********** Actually, the VfU consensus is usually a simple majority with at least three votes to undelete. Of course, that's only enough to send it back to VfD, not to permaundelete. User:Snowspinner 17:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) ************On VfU, there is no consensus requirement. An article which was improperly deleted can be immediately restored. An article deleted properly can be restored with a majority consent. To call a majority a consensus is just repugnant. -anthony *************Not nearly as repugnant as your continual claims that the rules aren't being followed when they are. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy might be instructive next time you decide to complain about nothing. User:Snowspinner 20:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) **************Which rules have I claimed aren't being followed? ***********Also, pages get undeleted on a regular basis without first going through VfU. Only if they were recreating VfD'd pages would anyone really care. 18:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) == Missing page == Obviously there is a page missing, which was incorrectly linked - how can the data be found again? The page of interest was called OCT (Optical coherence tomography). Can it be revived again as "Optical Coherence Tomography"? --User:BoP 13:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==ACCIDENTAL vandalism== I destroyed by mistake the English version of page ATC code A02 (overwrite to translate into french; I tought I was in the French section.
Please restore the previous English version
I am very sorry

User:Eras-mus 23:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Don't be too hard on your yourself. It seems to have been an honest mistake. I fixed it. Actually, you could easily have fixed it yourself. Any editor can "revert" the article to any previous version by clicking on the history tab, clicking on the date of the version to which you want to revert, then clicking "Edit this page". You can then edit that text. When you save (including the case where you make no edits), that old version (with any edits) becomes the current version. You don't have to be an administrator to do this. --User:BM 23:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) == I removed the reference to "deletion management redesign..." == I removed the line :A meta:deletion management redesign may address many of these issues, but that is some way off. It's unclear to me what it's talking about. Looking at the history of the Meta page, it looks like a discussion that was active in 2003, more or less petered out in early 2004, and apart from one comment has had no serious discussion since March 2004. Since this does not seem to be anything that is "in the works," not even "some ways off," I don't see the point of having it. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 17:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Explain that VfU is not a VfD re-run? == Should there be a clearer explanation along these