Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These are articles listed on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion that were NOT undeleted.
See the history of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion for attribution of these discussions.
This page is preserved as an artifact of an optimistic time, and is not being updated. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05
26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Articles[edit]

May 02, 2005[edit]

Jim Robinson[edit]

I would like to request this article's restoration on the grounds that bona fide reasons existed against its deletion that were neglected in the VfD process and also due to problems in the way the VfD process was conducted. This article pertains to an individual named Jim Robinson, who is the owner and president of Free Republic - a prominent political website. The Jim Robinson article was merged with the Free Republic article, but this is not at all in keeping with how site owners of similar well known political websites are separated from the article about their site (examples: Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Matt Drudge, Charles Johnson, John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson). VfD on this article arose barely two days after its creation at the behest of a single editor who favored merging the two after the consensus on talk:Jim Robinson favored keeping it. At the time of the VfD request, this same editor had already attempted to merge the articles twice unilaterally in less than an hour's time of the article's creation, and in spite of outstanding indications by at least three separate editors (myself included) that he discuss his proposed changes before carrying them through. He then initiated the VfD process two days later to obtain a merge, though Wikipedia's deletion policy clearly says this was NOT the proper process to pursue at the time that he did (e.g. a merge tag and discussion would've been more appropriate). During the VfD process he misrepresented the discussion on talk:Jim Robinson by indicating it was deadlocked, when in fact it was ongoing and the only participant who refused to go along was himself. Given these circumstances and a fundamental flaw in the way the VfD was initiated and portrayed, I believe it should be undeleted and any discussion started over. Thanks Rangerdude 16:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirected. Technically, this page is for restoring deleted articles only, but the principles are similar enough. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jim Robinson shows a valid process and consensus to merge and redirect. Given that, whether or not you agree with the outcome or think that they ignored your arguments is irrelevant, because Votes for undeletion is not for rearguing your case. None of your complaints, even if true, are relevant to whether there was a consensus to merge and redirect. Or, as we say in the law biz, you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 12(b)(6). Postdlf 18:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the above. The aforementioned claims that an undeletion is unwarranted here are plainly in conflict with Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy, which does indeed permit undeletion in cases where somebody "objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but were improperly ignored." It also permits undeletion in the event that "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored," which I believe to be the case based upon consistency with the other articles I mentioned and linked to above. Furthermore, the complaints are indeed relevant for the reason that they produced a VfD process that was in plain conflict with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, which plainly includes merge requests of the sort that was made (which are to be done by a merge tag and subsequent discussion) are not among the things that are to be resolved by VfD, to wit "Problems that don't require deletion...merge and redirect." Rangerdude 19:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, "undeletion" involves deleted articles, not redirected ones. Regardless, the fact is that a VfD tag and discussion provide more notice and more focused dicussion than would happen if nothing but a merge tag were applied to the article. You actually wanted less process to happen? The issue of merging was discussed and the VfD represents a community consensus on that issue. Postdlf 19:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very good, Postdlf. And "Votes for Deletion" involve articles in which a decision is being made on deletion, not merges, which require a separate "merge" tag and are explicitly excluded from the VfD process on Wikipedia's deletion policy page. That process was not followed and the VfD was initiated improperly. Thus its validity was compromised from the very beginning. Rangerdude 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't the substance of the debate here, but I'd like to correct information that Rangerdude for some reason persists in propagating — he states VfD on this article arose barely two days after its creation at the behest of a single editor who favored merging the two when in fact I also concurred with using VfD as an option for garnering more opinions and in fact was the one to suggest the step. I also vote to keep merged — the community weighed in and I see no compelling reason to reverse or recast the vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • And I'd also like to correct misinformation that Katefan0 persists in propagating. He/she now claims credit for initiating the VfD. In reality, he/she merely proposed a VfD upon the mistaken belief that consensus did not exist on the article's talk page based upon an erronious counting of the participants there. Upon being informed of his/her mistake he/she promptly apologized and made no further comment indicating he/she intended to persue a VfD further. JC then arrived the next day and initiated one on his own. And yes, all of this may be plainly seen on the page talk:Jim Robinson Rangerdude 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You said above, before I commented, that the VfD was started with support from only one editor (see my bolded text). You have now admitted that in fact there were two editors who supported it. I am sure you won't make that mistake in the future. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
            • Did you place the VfD tag on the site, Katefan? No. Did you initiate the VfD process through any edit of your own? No. Did you do anything with the VfD other than talking about the possibility of having one at a future time? No. Did you continue to press for a VfD after I corrected your mistaken counting and after you openly apologized for that mistake? No. Did you give any expression of support for the VfD at any time after your mistaken count was pointed out? No. Thus you neither started nor threw your support behind JC's unilateral VfD decision until after it was well underway. Rangerdude 17:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really don't know what more I can say. That you seriously think you know my own opinions better than I do leaves me baffled. At any rate, now you know them quite clearly, so please don't misrepresent them again. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
                • I don't profess to know your opinions. I do know, however, what you posted here and when you posted it. That record shows you premising your initial indications that VfD should be used on a mistaken count of the votes and apologizing for that mistake when I corrected you. Following your apology you did not push for a VfD. JC then came along and initiated one on his own and without any participation in it at all by you until some time later when you showed up to cast a vote in it. Rangerdude
                  • Hey guys--can you take this to your talk pages if it's that important? Since any editor is free to make a VfD nomination at any time, the degree to which Katefan0 supported JC's nomination doesn't seem germane to this discussion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Apologies, Ten. It's really not germane to the discussion at all. But I take offense at having my opinions misrepresented in public venues, so I felt the need to set the record straight, which I think I've done. That's all I have to say here. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep merged Agree with Postdlf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep merged. Also agree with Postdlf. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merged. Also agree with Postdlf. -Willmcw 21:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep merged, per Postdlf. Why are we voting to undelete an article that wasn't deleted in the first place? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above. Don't ask me. Why did we hold a "Vote for Deletion" on an article that wasn't deleted in the first place and was in reality subject to a separate merge procedure with its own merge tag that the VfD's original proponent failed to observe?
  • Keep merged. As VfD closer, not directly involved in this discussion prior to closing, I weigh in on behalf of the nine merge votes that put the article in its current state. This is not the place to reargue the VfD. I found no irregularities in the discussion or the votes; RangerDude simply does not seem to want to accept that there was substantial support (75%) for the merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above. Now that's odd. User:Jonathan Christensen did not wish to accept that the majority opposed a merge on Talk:Jim Robinson at the time he initiated the VfD and you said that was justified (even though it violated Wikipedia's Deletion policy, which says VfD's are not for merge requests). Yet when I challenge the VfD process and the majority it produced here (which Wikipedia's Undeletion policy permits me to do), you complain about me not accepting that majority. You must be having trouble with consistency again. Rangerdude 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merged, VfU is not the place to rerun VfD votes. RickK 00:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment on the above. I realize this is probably futile given the deletion-happy editors around here, but actually VfU IS a place to challenge deletions of that sort and others. Per the VfU policy, a VfU may be initiated when an editor believes the process "improperly ignored" objections to the deletion and when the VfD was improperly conducted. I have alleged and documented both, to wit: (1) the administrator who made the final decision based that decision on vote totals rather than pertinent discussion material objecting to a deletion and (2) the VfD process was improperly conducted from the get go as it was initiated to conduct a merge - not a deletion - where a merge tag rather than a VfD tag is the explicitly prescribed remedy. Like it or not, those are the rules, though I'm beginning to wonder why we even have rules for things like this seeing as they are so casually disregarded when it gets in the way of an uninformed frenzy to delete a perfectly valid and well developed article. Rangerdude 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rules are all very well, but this wasn't a touch-and-go case, but a clear consensus to merge. You'd be surprised at the purposes for which VfD is used--from a merge authority to a cleanup factory. By contrast, a merge tag doesn't go anywhere. There are very few prescriptions on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A more interesting question, Rangerdude, is why you thought the factuality of the redirect was "disputed".[1] I'm a little confused by the metaphysics of that. Postdlf 07:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice attempt at changing the subject, Postdlf. It was a mistaken edit on my part when juggling between all the articles on this page. I was attempting to restore the dispute tag on the other section and mistakenly put it there, which was quickly corrected. I have not since challenged it nor pressed for its restoration. Of course all of that is immaterial to this discussion, yet your continued evasion of the fact that this VfD was improperly initiated combined with your selective and oft-mistaken stringency for applying wikipedia's rules is not. So I'll ask you again. Would you care to tell me what a merge decision was doing on a "Vote for Deletion"? Rangerdude 17:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because we do it that way. Often. Because the important concerns with a controversial merging are not formalistic but rather notice and an opportunity to discuss. Because a VfD gives a lot more process than talk page discussion. Because a process that can permanently delete an article and all of its content should be able to establish a consensus on moving and combining it. Because people voted there even more clearly than likely would have happened on the talk page. Because merging could properly occur even without a merge tag, which just tells other people to do work the tagger doesn't have time to do. And finally, I changed the subject because I got bored. Because that was a more interesting question to me. Because I and others have explained ourselves and agree with each other. Because in the end, we don't need you to agree with us. Postdlf 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You may do it that way, and some others may do it that way, but Wikipedia's deletion policy clearly says not to do it that way. Given a conflict between the word of, say, you and Wikipedia's formal written policy, I'm inclined to go by the latter. If you don't wish to follow that policy I can't stop you. But don't lecture other people about proper policies and the sort when you clearly don't follow the rules yourself. Rangerdude 18:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The written rule says that just so VfD isn't flooded with merge requests that could be taken care of less formally, which obviously doesn't mean that doing it formally on VfD is somehow less valid than doing it unilaterally or with unstructured discussion on a talk page. I'm really bored with this now. You're not changing anyone's mind by repeating yourself, and no one else is interpreting the policy the way you are, so let it drop. Postdlf 20:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's no point in having a rule if it is constantly disregarded by people like you. And if you're bored by this discussion, why keep posting to it? Nobody's making you come here. Rangerdude 20:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The article seems notable enough.--Jondel 07:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merged. Unusual as the VfD for the purpose of merger was, the consensus on that vote was clear and procedurally there was nothing irregular about the process. I don't see why we're rearguing the case here. Besides, the content about Robinson is all related to his conduct in relation to Free Republic, and barely any biographical information that could stand on its own. If somebody can expand the information on Robinson proper to a decent level, then he might warrant a separate article. Of the other articles mentioned, Matt Drudge has enough biographical material to meet this standard. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is a bio-stub, but also contains biograhical material as does Charles Johnson (blogger). John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson are barely there, and have been since October '04. They should tagged for merging with Power Line (blog), IMO, but that's another discussion. --khaosworks 07:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep merged. The VfD consensus was clear. --bainer 09:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merged, as should be expected from the guy who wanted it merged in the same place. As inappropriate as my initial actions may or may not have been, I am absolutely astounded at the amount of discussion this article has raised. I can't say I have anything more to say, other than to apologize to you all for all of the time you've spent (wasted?) reading it. --Jonathan Christensen 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there was a significant jazz musician of this name (starter stub at Jim Robinson (trombonist), IMO leave as a disambiguation. -- Infrogmation 19:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 01, 2005[edit]

Casady & Greene[edit]

I believe this page should remain as it provides Casady & Greene customers with links for product support. C&G went out of business and left many customers without information on where to go for product support.

  • Keep deleted. It was deleted as a copyvio. It appears to be material copied wholesale from their website. As a long-time Macintosh user, I lament the passing of Casady and Greene which was a lovely little company that furnished many interesting and fondly-remembered products (Glider Pro, K.I.S.S., Conflict Catcher...) Although of borderline notability, I would personally support the creation of article on them. If someone were to write a decent new article on them and it were to be speedily deleted as re-creation, I'd vote for undeletion. If it were nominated for deletion, I'd vote strong keep. But... the existing article is a copyvio plain and simple and must be kept deleted. Because of the technical deletion issues, the history is conveniently there if anyone wants to use short and appropriate excerpts as the basis of a new article. The customary procedure with copyvios is to develop the new article at Casady & Greene/temp. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Deleted via proper process. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep deleted. As with dpbsmith, I'd be happy to see a redone article. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep delete This is Not a business directory/site.--Jondel 07:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a business directory or webhosting provider. --Carnildo 22:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted but strong keep of a new non-copy vio article like dpbsmith and rhymeless. Cburnett 07:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as it was a copyvio, but please feel free to start a new article at Casady & Greene/temp. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21:17 May 1, 2003 JohnOwens deleted "Santa Cruz, Bolivia" (banned user trying to sneak back in)
    • This was a zero content stub: text ~ "city in Bolivia", and deletion probably justified on those grounds alone. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)


  • 00:38 Apr 2, 2003 TUF-KAT deleted "St. Anger" (nothing to roll back User:Weezer's non-contribution to)
    • Since someone has recreated this article by reposting the content, I undeleted it, so it's in the history. At the time of deletion it had zero content - "non-contribution" is accurate. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • 06:20 1 Jun 2003 Eloquence deleted "User talk:Administration" (banned for good)
  • 06:20 1 Jun 2003 Eloquence deleted "User:Administration" (banned for good)
    • I object. These pages are by an annoying vandal who has created dozens of nicks, they are useless and confusing because they will show up in a user search for "administration". --Eloquence 23:31 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • This is an argument. Where are the references of the discussions which lead to the first ban ? On these pages, or elsewhere ? If this person comes back under another nick and is said to be "administration", would these pages then be undeleted ? Or would the person be banned without further discussion, or were the reasons for the ban saved somewhere else ? ant
        • The original nick of the user was "The Stick", and he came back under various permutations. He vandalized hundreds of pages and was banned and reverted repeatedly; see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. There's no valuable information on the above pages. Please sign your comments, Anthere, and if you are so interested in how the housekeeping process works, I suggest you apply for sysop status. I'll set you up right away. --Eloquence 00:04 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
          • I trust you when you say there is no valuable information in these pages. No need to undelete these pages then. Thank you for your answer Erik. I know for the sysop stuff. I am just not yet decided...but the idea is making its way, no fear ;-) (eh, I cleaned up a anom Michael edit this evening). Ant

We are requesting that Sir Charles submissions be undeleted:

Kurt Kawohl[edit]

  • Kurt Kawohl - this appeared on 19 Aug and was deleted on 25 Aug. So something tells me it wasn't listed for 7 days on Vfd. -- Oliver P. 04:34, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Violates the Auto-biography policy. Should stay deleted.
    • Leave it deleted. It has been through VfD once already and the google hits it gets are mostly forum entries. My dad gets 2,140 hits for his genealogy work, does he deserve an article?Ark30inf 07:17, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • That policy isn't adopted afaik. They dude has enough google hits to get an article. BL 12:57, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 ©2003 Google

Searched the web for kurt kawohl. Results 1 - 10 of about 726.

Searched the web for kkawohl. Results 1 - 10 of about 371. Search took 0.06 seconds.

Searched the web for kawohl. Results 1 10 of about 3,600. Search took 0.07 seconds.

His Google hits are almost all self-created, just like those of Daniel C. Boyer, who has even more. --Wik 13:03, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)
That's all very well, but the seven day rule still counts. Martin 09:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Don't undelete this shameless self-promotion/aggrandization. ThereIsNoSteve 23:33, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


From VfD

  • Kurt Kawohl - has been listed before. Why is it still there? I don't think there was a consensus to keep it. --Wik 00:30, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I haven't seen a specific record of it, and haven't dug through VFD revision history yet, but I recall it being something like 80% in favor of deletion. There was some challenge to it... mostly due to the (highly inflated by his spamming) Google count. -- Jake 00:37, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Please see Kkawohl
      • Please read the definition of what Transcendentalism represents.--User:kkawohl
        • Your definition of Transcendentalism, which isn't everyone's... and is irrelevant to whether there should be an article on you. And please stop putting paragraph breaks before your links. -- Jake 02:58, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Kurt, I know you want to get things your way and stuff, but youve been through this before-- and youre plenty at home on internet-encyclopeida, eh? Even Steven Hawking would get sideways looks if he had the hubris to start talking about themselves in such context. Want immortality? It'll just have to be on the talk pages, Im afraid. 戴&#30505sv
    • If this has been through VfD before, and passed, then there is no need to go through it again. It should just be deleted.Ark30inf 04:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 07:18, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:06, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Deleted- Been there done that.戴&#30505sv 17:53, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It was listed on VfU. It seems some sysop may have undeleted it without saying they had done this. Angela 21:20, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • Did it pass undeletion somehow? Its been through VfD before and someone put it back. Whoever deleted it this time just re-deleted something that had already been through once. In any event I vote to keep it DELETED.Ark30inf 07:17, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of heterosexuals[edit]

I am requesting that this page be undeleted so that I may view the list. LirQ

  • If you provide me with an email address, I'll send you a copy of the page as an attachment. -- Cyan 04:55, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I have sent Lir a copy of the last version of this page, not counting Hephaestos's placeholder . -- Cyan 18:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • At one stage the content was copied to talk:List of heterosexuals/deletion, so you can read it there. Martin 13:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Agree with undelete, 29%- (not including me) voted against deletion. BL 16:26, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • While a notable minority did indeed vote for deletion, few dissent sufficiently from the outcome to ask for undeletion, BuddhaInside being a notable exception. There was also a fairly high turnout. Therefore, I suggest that the rough consensus was probably enough to delete and, for the moment, stay deleted. Of course, administrators must necessarilly use their best judgement in determining this matter, and if another administrator feels that there was no rough consensus, I will bow to hir judgement. Oh, I'll add a suggested approach for those desiring reinstatement to the talk page. Martin 21:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I read it. Thanks for the support. But I don't think a "list of heterosexuals" could be anything but rubbish and flame bate - I'll be the first one to list it on VfD if it returns. However, the page was clearly deleted without a consensus (not even a rough one) and in violation to prevailing policies. Since everytime such a story happens it seems to set a precedent, in this case a very bad precedent imho. That's why I want it undeleted. BL 15:05, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The two comments below are just redoing the debate on talk:list of heterosexuals, so they're not helpful here, imo. We should stick to questions of process: whether a rough consensus was reached: we can assume all those who voted for deletion still want the content deleted - there's no need to repeat all those here. (please!)

If you want to read it, someone posted it on BJAODN. - Arthur George Carrick

List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

This was deleted upon the erroneous claim that all the votes were in favor of deletion. I myself was going to respond in favor of this article on VfD, but for some reason the article was prematurely removed from the VfD page (and the article prematurely deleted) before I got around to doing it. Let's keep it on here long enough to give it a fair hearing. Also, a page on List of sex partners of Bill Clinton was deleted immediately with some snide comment about "tabloid journalism". Despite the fact that the article could have grown into a comprehensive list (maybe, I don't know exactly how many sex partners he had) and was completely factual and of historical interest, something thought it fit to immediately delete before its time on VfD was up. Wiwaxia 02:28, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • 11 people voted for it to be deleted or moved (RickK, Vancouverguy, Ark30inf, fonzy, BL, Adam Carr, Marshman, JamesDay, Cyan, Daniel Quinlan, Minesweeper). LirQ thought it should be kept because "there isn't room on the main articles", which many of the people above said was not true and the info could go into the main article, so such an argument would seem not to stand. Smtih03 felt it should be kept just because the Bush one was kept but later said "...if the Clinton page has been restored than that should be deleted as well"[2].

Angela 06:35, Oct 7/ 22:05 Oct 8.

    • Keep it deleted.戴&#30505sv
    • Completely useless. Keep deleted. --mav 06:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Solely troll bait. Links to FreeRepublic and DemocraticUnderground in the main articles will accomplish the same purpose. Keep it and its ilk deleted.Ark30inf 04:50, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it deleted. --Morven 07:16, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I am in favor of deletion, but discussion on these pages is still going on. Would it not be better to undelete until the VfD discussion on the Bush one reaches a decision? Andre Engels 10:38, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If the page wasn't listed for 7 full days on VfD before it was deleted -> proper protocol wasn't followed -> the decision must be undone -> rules are supposed to be followed -> Undelete. BL 12:18, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought I already wrote that this page was listed for seven days but now it doesn't say that. Perhaps I didn't copy it all over when I got an edit conflict with mav. Anyway, I think it was listed from 24th sept-1st Oct (this is off the top of my head, so don't attack me if I'm wrong, but anyway - it was definitely 7+ days). Angela 17:59, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Why has this been undeleted? And by whom? After being on VfD for a week, and the majority here saying again not to undelete it, I feel it is completely wrong for someone to undelete it and not even have the decency to admit it was them. Angela 19:25, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote withdrawn! BL 14:49, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Wikipedians by inclusionism/deletionism[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Wikipedians by inclusionism/deletionism. Trollings. Serves no purpose but to increase factionalism and make things more difficult for people who actually hope to make a useful Wikipedia. RickK 20:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) (re-added by JamesDay after it was deleted and removed from here within hours of listing. May need an undelete so it can be considered)
    • The content was "Are you an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither?" Inclusionists. Calmypal - I will have no qualms if someday, every word on Wikipedia is a link to a disambiguation page." That was the entire content, so this can be discussed without the need for undeletion. Angela 21:30, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks. So long as that entry was self-descriptive, this seems like a page which has merit in the wikipedia namespace, though I won't choose to use it or other "wikipedians by" myself. I agree with RickKs decision to list it on VfD instead of deleting it quickly. Since it was listed there first, that's the track it needs to take to being deleted. JamesDay 21:50, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Undeleted by Evercat. Now on VfD.
    • And deleted again after 5 days on VfD. Angela

Yellow Pig Day[edit]

It's probably not going to make it, but please let's keep it up for the full seven days. (BTW, I'm NOT asking for it to be undeleted PERMANENTLY. Just for the standard amount of time protocol says it's allowed to be on VFD.) 152.163.253.104

Five days is now the standard amount of time to keep something on VfD. Maximus Rex, Delirium, MrJones, Andre Engels, BCorr, David Stapleton, Vicki Rosenzweig and Minesweeper all voted for deletion. The only people opposing were Hamton, Princess Toadstool and Panochik who are widely believed to be the same person. I object to undeletion. Angela 12:34, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
Keep it deleted. Sock puppet votes should not affect this decision. Fuzheado 03:47, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Unencyclopedic. Kosebamse 18:05, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 22:55, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
Keep deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Eager Beaver[edit]

Recreated by anon on 2 October, so I assume that's a request for undeletion. VfD result and VfD history showing Evil saltine deleting. JamesDay 04:42, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • No that's not how undeletion is requested. That's called vandalism. Angela 04:48, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • At least for the first time around, I prefer to assume good will and start the right procedure on behalf of the anon. As I did on VfD the first time around, I'm abstaining here. JamesDay 09:39, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, but I object to undeletion. Angela 04:37, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 22:55, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


Inclusionist[edit]

  • Inclusionist. Contains nothing but a link to meta. RickK 20:28, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) (re-added by JamesDay after it was deleted and removed from here within hours of listing. May need an undelete so it can be considered)
    • This was just a link. You don't need an undelete to decide whether a single link is appropriate for an article. It linked to m:Inclusionist. Angela 21:30, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Was it created by a relative newcomer trying to be helpful? If yes, it's worth keeping around even though it's in the wrong namespace. I'll trust a newcomer to know what they found confusing at first. JamesDay 21:53, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I've explained to this user that such things should be only at Meta. In the same way that we don't keep pages like "test 1234" just because they are created by newbies, there is no reason to keep this. An explanation to the user is sufficient without the need to have this discussed on VfD for a week. Angela 22:03, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I agree. JamesDay 23:19, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep deleted, use meta. Daniel Quinlan 22:55, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEP. Why would we want a search on "Inclusionist" to find no matches? --Rebroad 00:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)--Rebroad 00:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Alteria[edit]

  • I've looked into it, Alteria is in New Zealand. - Arthur George Carrick 04:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't, it's an imaginary place. And you put this in the wrong place on the page. RickK 04:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The most recent version of the page said "I have decided to remove my entry from this site due to the abusive emails", written by the original author. I think we should respect that and therefore oppose undeletion. Angela 07:16, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • How's this for a plan:Someone undeletes it, copies it, deletes it, logs out, and creates the article anew. ? - Arthur George Carrick 00:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree: that would be dishonest. Honesty is the best policy. It should either stay deleted, which I think is correct, or be undeleted along with its history. Martin 01:23, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Why does this nonexistant place need an article, to begin with? RickK 19:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Don't undelete. Imaginary places don't need articles in an encyclopedia. Maximus Rex 19:46, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • The original author's comment is inconsistent with the "GNU Free Documentation License" notice at the bottom of the edit page. -Smack 01:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Chris Malachowsky[edit]

Biographical article deleted without being listed on Vfd. -- Oliver P. 08:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • It might have been better to raise this with Jimfbleak as it would seem more a difference of what is classed as suitable for instant deletion rather than an ordinary undeletion request. Anyway, I've undeleted and listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements for a week. Angela 08:44, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Undeleted and deleted a week later as copyvio

Banana-Spirulina Pancakes[edit]

Moved from VfD: Question- why was Banana-Spirulina Pancakes deleted? seemed a reasonable page to me, no worse than any other recipe page... Deletion log says 'see talk page', but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that at the deletion log quercus robur 00:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's precisely the point: it was a recipe. The consensus appears to be that recipe pages are not appropriate. I think there's a WikiBooks recipe book though, and it may have been moved there. Isomorphic 00:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There's a List of recipes, which is in the process of being moved to a specialist cookbook. Given that, I personally don't see the point of listing individual recipes for deletion unless that project has stalled. Onebyone 01:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There were no objections [3] to deleting this so I deleted it. On second thoughts, when there are hundreds of other recipes, why should one be deleted and not the rest. If they are going to move to Wikibooks at some time, perhaps the deletion should be held off 'till then. I've undeleted it for now as I doubt my original decision to delete it, depsite the 100% consensus at the time. Relisted on VfD. Suggest discussion occurs at Talk:Banana-Spirulina Pancakes/Delete. Angela. 02:16, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hertz doctrine[edit]

01:58, Dec 4, 2003 Delirium deleted "Hertz doctrine" (obscure neologism not in common use -- listed on VfD 6 days, opinions 6-1 in favor of deletion, including my vote (The Cunctator opposing))

1. Delirium, unless I am mistaken, made no effort to preserve the content that was listed on that page at what he considered a more appropriate title.

2. If the consensus is that the content needs to be listed under a different title, Hertz doctrine should be made to be a redirect to that page. --The Cunctator

On 17:58, 26 Nov 2003 Kingturtle deleted "Hertz doctrine" (voted for deletion. 2 votes to keep, 8 votes (including mine) to delete)

1. The entry listed on Votes for Deletion was Hearst doctrine, not Hertz doctrine.

2. After Hearst doctrine was listed on Votes for Deletion, I created the entry Hertz doctrine and significantly editing the content that had been at Hearst doctrine.

3. Kingturtle, unless I am mistaken, made no effort to preserve the content that was listed on that page at what he considered a more appropriate title.

4. If the consensus is that the content needs to be listed under a different title, Hertz doctrine should be made to be a redirect to that page. --The Cunctator

    • Keep deleted. The "Hertz doctrine" is made up term that hasn't been picked up. There are 12 Google hits for the term, including a cached copy of vfd. Changing the name of the page is not a reasonable reason for it to be undeleted, since both the Hearst and Hertz doctrines don't exist. Having a page on the supposed "Hertz doctrine" ('we're number one!') would fall under original research. Maximus Rex 20:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I undeleted "Hertz doctrine". But it should be placed on Votes for Deletion. Kingturtle 20:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Votes:

  • Keep deleted. (1) vote was nearly unanimous (2) The NPOV content is already well covered elsewhere. Daniel Quinlan 04:07, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This has already been through VfU once before. Both times it was listed on VfD it was decided to delete it. Angela. 04:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This has already been decided upon before. Maximus Rex 04:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Followup: Brion has restored the "Page history" - a brief triumph for the wiki-way! It is currently redirected to Bush administration doctrine of military preeminence

German Instrument of Surrender, 1945[edit]

  • Deleted without going via VfD, not an immediate deletion candidate. Jamesday 15:48, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It was moved via the transwiki system developed by Eclecticology and myself. Issues with the system should probably be brought up at m:talk:transwiki rather than here. Angela 23:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • That's still an out of process deletion. Deletion from the English Wikipedia via transwiki is not in accord with Wikipedia:Deletion policy or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. This one is problematic because it's an excellent basis for an article on the circumstances of the surrender, why the document was signed by the people who signed it and which forces they were representing at the time. Unfortunately, the deletion without VfD short-circuited the process of getting that done. If you'd like to see it deleted from the English Wikipedia, please restore it, wait a month to see if you still think that it merits deletion at the end of the month, then list it on VfD if you think that it does. Jamesday 11:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • if it was source text, and has been moved then it shouldn't be undeleted. Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
      • It has not been deleted. It has been moved. I have replied in more detail at m:talk:transwiki. Angela. 21:07, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. It's a source document! Moving it was appropriate. If not supported by the policy, the policy should be changed rather than restoring this content! Daniel Quinlan 13:03, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Replacement article started, about the document rather than featuring the document, allowing for above-mentioned (potentially interesting) development. It's a stub, and needs cleaning. Gavin White 08:00, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of nicknames for George W. Bush[edit]

  • I miss it very much. Only 60-40 votes in favour of deletion. BL 04:15, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • It was more than 60%. Anyway, it already exists at List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. Angela. 09:57, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not really, most of the nicks are missing and the page doesn't give enough space to put Bush's nicknames in a context or explain their meaning. And it was about 60% to 40%, which furthermore was the second or third time the page was listed on vfd. And the only time the delete votes got a majority. BL 12:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep the damn thing deleted. Useless article that serves only as a vehicle for GWB bashing (which, as much as I might enjoy doing so, is not on-topic here) —Morven 07:13, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep redirected; add to the List of U.S. Presidential nicknames if you think we've missed some there. There's no need for a separate page. --Jiang 07:19, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I already explained the need for a separate page - List of U.S. Presidential nicknames would be to long and cumbersome if a proper discussion of all nicknames was on that page. My viewpoint is that a potential reader would very much be interested in why Bush have been called "Dubya" or "King George" or something similar. Therefore I think a background discussion about the global anti-Bush sentiment that has generated many of the nicknames Bush has is needed. That some people are not interested in, or already knows, what "Dubya" mean does not mean that Wikipedia should not contain that information. BL 05:36, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, and even though I'm pretty well educated and know quite a lot about Bush and contributed to the List of nicknames for George W. Bush, I had no idea about half of the nicknames on that page or what they meant. But now I know, and that is what Wikipedia is all about I think. BL 05:40, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • But is there anything published about the origins of the nicknames? It sounds like this would be primary research and therefore unsuitable under the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Angela. 23:13, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Search the web and you shall find, Angela. And no, it obviously wouldn't be primary research. In fact it wouldn't be any research at all. Here is a link that shows that the last vote was split 62.5-37.5% (if Delirium is correct): http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-nicknames-for-George-W.-Bush BL 04:14, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. Maximus Rex 22:58, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't like Bush or his policies. But this isn't an appropriate article! The only way to make it NPOV is to have it in the context of a list of all presidential nicks, as on the page noted. Add a couple of words of explanatory context to each nick on that page, if you really want; I wouldn't believe the accuracy of any longer background info, in any case.

George Francis Cruickshank - wasn't given 5 days on vfd Anthony DiPierro 21:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ok, I undeleted. Tomorrow is five days. -- Viajero 23:05, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Re-deleted.

aids kills fags dead, Aids kills fags dead, AIDS kills fags dead, etc...[edit]

why can't these redirects be allowed to work? Jack 09:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're joking, right? If not, do you have one really good explanation for why you would want or need such a redirect? - Texture 15:18, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Try reading Talk:AKFD/redirect. The AKFD article doesn't even exist anymore. It is just a redirect itself so why on earth would you want a redirect to it? Angela. 17:08, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
You know I've read it, heck, I voted on there and posted to it, debated it w you, etc... IMO the vote as it stands is in my favor. Anyways, my point is simple: I edited this article when I started here, because I typed "AIDS kills fags dead" or some other such variant (certainly not "Slogan:AIDS Kills Fags Dead) and it makes me sad that those edits I made can't be accessed by the next reader who comes along and types in the same words I did. The article of course has been merged into Anti-gay slogan for whatever reason. Thats fine, all I am asking for here is a couple redirects (to that page), so normal guys like me can type in funny phrases and so forth and find an article to educate them :). Jack 06:07, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've just realised aids kills fags dead and Aids kills fags dead never existed, so they can't be undeleted anyway. Angela. 22:52, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I'll create them then, thanks. What about AIDS kills fags dead? Jack 02:54, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And there was me thinking you weren't a troll... Angela. 19:04, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
Thats not nice :( Sam Spade 15:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Jack. That was out of order, but after the issue of these redirects had been discussed for about a year, I think it was very wrong to create new ones. It doesn't of course mean you are a troll, and I retract that statement, but I think such an action is likely to lead to yet more conflicts on this issue after it had largely settled down. Angela. 23:55, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for both your appology, and your near faultless civility. I assure you I am not "trolling" in any traditional sense, but happen rather to be atypical in my interests and sentiments here. The one value which I pray we can all agree to is intellectual integrity. Silencing learning should never be a part of any ambition so noble as that of creating a tome of reference :). Sam Spade 01:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this here? Sam Spade 19:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because this is the page for things that were listed on VfU but stayed deleted. And of the three AKFD ones listed, the only one which previously existed was kept deleted, so it's archived here.Angela. 19:59, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
But why was it kept deleted? What can be done to restore it? Sam Spade 03:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sam, discuss it at Talk:AKFD/redirect. That page will tell you everything you need to know about why it was deleted. Short of convincing all those who voted to delete it to change their minds, or waiting long enough for the voting pool to change, there is nothing that can be done to restore it because it was deleted in line with policy. I suggest you focus on trying to explain why you think we would need redirects to a page that does not exist. Angela. 16:24, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand, this was the vote, right?


I count 7/15 in favor of deleting, 8/14 opposed to deleting. Am I missing something here? Isn't this far short of what would be required to delete the redirect? As far as my reasoning on why I care, I went over that pretty thoroughly on Talk:AKFD/redirect, and am willing to discuss it more, but right now the main issue seems to me to be the above vote, and the deleted status, and their incongruity. Sam Spade 03:32, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I voted repeatedly to delete this. Where is my name? Which vote is this from? - Texture 03:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[4] Sam Spade 03:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thank you - Texture 03:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can I just point out AIDS Kills Fags Dead was not deleted. You're arguing over nothing. Angela.

After reading thru the article again, it looks like I was mistaken, and the above was just a poll, and this


was the actual vote, which does seem to be in favor of deleting the link. Looks like Angela was right after all, oh well, sorry for any confusion caused. Sam Spade 05:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Putting these "vote" results here is highly misleading. Check the page history. Of the votes made in the period of time this was on VfD, there was only one vote to keep it. Angela. 22:12, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Steak and Blowjob Day[edit]

Although I don't think it needs to be here, it didn't go through the official VfD process. It does get 10 Google hits and it has a website. RickK 01:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Deleted under speedy deletion rule #4 "Very short pages with little or no definition or context". Entire contents was "'One month after Valentine's Day, girlfriends dote on theirboyfriends." Maximus Rex 01:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. -- Infrogmation 20:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Juanita Del Freje[edit]

Not a speedy deletion candidate. Anthony DiPierro 21:40, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Undeleted, VfD, re-deleted after an additional 5 days. Angela. 21:32, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Kilian Knote[edit]

Not on VfD 5 days. Anthony DiPierro 14:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted - prove it with a link and provide the vote. Was it a clear concensus? - Texture 15:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • 5 delete, 1 keep. Not kept for 5 days on VfD and should have been - withholding my vote until I can see the text - Texture 17:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I voted to keep. Anthony DiPierro 17:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • My apologies. I tallied the wrong one. Corrected the stats. - Texture 17:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • According to [7] the listing was made on February 29 and was removed on March 3. Hence: feb29, mar1, mar2, mar3 = 4 days. I read the deleted article and I vote to let it deleted. Optim·.· 17:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • When subtracting you don't count the number itself. 3-29=3 (mod 29). It was listed for slightly less than 3 days. Anthony DiPierro 18:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I vote to keep deleted - page says person is looking for a job in london, that he founded a university club and he attented two universities. I page about me would be more interesting.I agree that it shouldn't have been deleted until 5 days, but a note on the admin in questions talk page would IMO better than undeleting and going through VfD again theresa knott 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As this was deleted out of process without being listed five days I have undeleted it and put it back on VfD. Whether or not it should be kept is besides the point. The point is it shouldn't have been deleted earlier than policy allows. It is far from being a candidate for speedy deletion. Angela. 02:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Undeleted, VfD, re-deleted after an additional 5 days. Angela. 21:32, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)


Talk:Neilie Casey[edit]

This should be kept around at least for a while to document the vote. Anthony DiPierro 14:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted - the vote is over - Texture 17:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: vote is over. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have provided Anthony with a link to the complete delete debate, available in the page history of VfD. -- Cyan 21:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to note: this link would have been extremely difficult to find and impossible to verify as the complete debate without sysop privileges. -- Cyan 21:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks Cyan. Anthony DiPierro 22:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I still think this should be kept and listed on Wikipedia:Archived delete debates. Anthony DiPierro 22:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Duchy of Pinica[edit]

Rationale for listing on VfD was flat-out inaccurate and numerous attempts on my part to get clarification were ignored. There is no such thing as a "sub-province"; the very essence of a micronation is that some (probably most) people describe it as "fictional" -- it is lacking in recognition by most recognised nations. Furthermore, it stated right in the article that Pinica used to exist as "independent" but no longer did. Relist on VfD after undeletion (if anyone does) for a reason that actually bears some resemblance to the truth. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I've tried to look at this and I am more confused than when I started. The deleted article had a link to obituary of Lillian E. Heikkinen, grandmother of Lori Taucher, in The (Houghton, Michigan) Daily Mining Gazette in May 2003. The obit has no information about the Duchy of Pinica or the micronation of The Empire of Upper and Lower. The article says Lillian "worked for the Lake Superior Fishery in Hancock." No titles are given to herself or her parents or her husband. I can't see any corroboration. Was it deleted due to lack of evidence? Can you give us a link to the VfD discussion? - Texture 18:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to do this now. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If you can find it in the VfD page history you can get the URL from the "last" link for the removal of the discussion. - Texture 19:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&diff=2914605&oldid=2914579. My complaint is that it wasn't deleted for lack of evidence; this would have been a valid claim that could have been evaluated. It was confusingly called a "sub-province" (whatever that is) and said to be a "fictional micronation" (it's no longer a micronation and I'm not sure what "fictional micronation" means, if he means more fictional than most, almost universally unrecognised, micronations). If it goes through proper procedures, fine, delete it, but this isn't right. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • BTW, if Duchy of Pinica was deleted, how come Duchy of Natatoria was not? - Texture 18:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not to mention Imperial Post which lists the Empire of Upper and Lower as comprising almost all of Houghton County, Michigan. - Texture 18:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't find any support for your contention that it was deleted because it was confused as a "sub-province" (only the nominator referenced that). Only that it was fabricated with no fame or support. I'm not sure I would have voted that way but the vote is valid. - Texture 19:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What I can't understand is why you say that it was "fabricated". I'm still not getting an answer from anyone what "fabricated" means in this context -- I'm sure it doesn't mean that it was made, as the United States of America was "fabricated" at one point -- o.k., being serious: how does (did, as it's no longer "independent") the fabrication of Pinica as a micronation in 1983 qualify as more of a "fabrication" than other micronations, and, if it does, what is the basis for this allegation? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • The word "fabricated" was used in the VfD vote and I refer to it as one of the reasons given. I don't dispute its use since the article refers to "A micronation (cybernation, fantasy country, model country, new country project, pseudonation, counternation, ephemeral state, online nation, and variants thereof) is an entity intended to replace, resemble, mock, or exist on equal footing with recognized independent states. " This, combined with the idea of a nation within the U.S. leads one to regard it as fictional or pretending to be equal to the U.S. as a nation. No Wikipedia article was ever created for the Empire of Upper and Lower so I don't have that article to explore. - Tεxτurε 15:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • O.k. It's now been revealed that, in the estimation of some people at least, the real issue is that the Duchy of Pinica is a former micronation. If fictional is just a synonym for micronation (and I'm not disputing this usage) the phrase "fictional micronation" is redundant, and so these "nations" should either be called "fictional" alone or "micronations" alone. But it also stands revealed that, if the basis for Pinica being placed on VfD is that it was a micronation and that alone, all micronations will have to be deleted from Wikipedia, and I'll bet that is something with which a lot of people would take issue. Let's also make clear that as Pinica is no longer "independent" it does not make any claim "to be equal to the U.S. as a nation". So that argument can be put to rest right now. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • O.K. I won't argue with any of that. I only said that I'm not sure I would have voted to delete but the vote is valid. For that reason I won't vote to undelete - Tεxτurε 16:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's the breakdown:
    • RickK - Delete - "sub-province of a fictional micronation"
    • Daniel C. Boyer - No vote, as above
    • Saul Taylor - No vote, lots of other articles on micronations
    • Anjouli - Delete - micronation must have some degree of fame or following
    • Niteowlneils - Delete - No hits, comment in talk dubious
    • Wile E. Heresiarch - Delete - fabrication
    • Cyrius - Delete - no hits
    • Would you please clarify why you characterise my non-vote as "as above"? I'm confused as to what is the reference. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Certainly. Follow the parenthetical numbers from this discussion to the prior VfD. I was attributing your debate above as identical to your VfD debate in order to not repeat what you posted above. (Each point repeated more than once in VfD as shown) - Texture 16:04, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Above you state in this discussion: "(1) There is no such thing as a "sub-province"; (2)the very essence of a micronation is that some (probably most) people describe it as "fictional" -- it is lacking in recognition by most recognised nations. Furthermore, (3)it stated right in the article that Pinica used to exist as "independent" but no longer did."
In the VfD vote you state: "(2) The very fact that something is a micronation specifies that it does not have recognition by accepted states! (1)And Pinica is not a "sub-province" (whatever that means). Duchy of Pinica should be removed from VfD as the reasons stated for its inclusion here are simply not factual -- (1)there is no such thing as a "sub-province" and (2)"fictional micronation" is a bit problematic as the very essence of a micronation is that many would say it is not a "real country" and at any rate (3)the very article itself says Pinica is no longer its own micronation."
        • Gotcha. Thank you and my apologies for my obtuseness. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No need to recreate this. RickK | Talk 03:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why are you voting here when you have left unanswered my repeated questions and objections about your mysterious use of the term "sub-province," my requests for clarification on the phrase "fictional micronation" and my observation that Pinica no longer exists as an "independent" micronation? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted; the original reasons for deletion were valid. UninvitedCompany 16:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I have explained repeatedly and in excruciating detail why this is not true. The Duchy of Pinica is not a "fictional micronation", as it ceased to claim independence in 1984. "Fictional micronation" is to some degree redundant, and my attempts to get clarified what exactly is meant by this have been repeatedly rebuffed. As have been my attempts to find out what the mysterious category of "sub-province" means. I am not opposing the deletion of the Duchy of Pinica in general -- a case could be made that it is too obscure, not relevant or significant enough, or that adequate information is already included under Imperial Post (though the article could be expanded) -- but it is absolutely ridiculous for a deletion to go through when the reasons are either patently untrue or somewhat mysterious. The article should either be undeleted on this basis, or someone should make some attempt to explain the difference between "fictional" and "micronation", and what a "sub-province" is. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russeaus[edit]

  • deleted without vfd process. Russeaus is how some Africans call Russia in their french-like creole languages. I'm curious what the article talks about, hence the undeletion request.
    • It said: "Russeaus is statique from asianique et europanteque origineaux with diplomatique expressionique unique et economiques problematique de l' 1991 reassuractionique by communeque statimasteriques partele. diversifique de russeaux populatione is: belarique, georgique, armenique, azerbajique, letonique, lithuanique, kazakique, uzbeque, turkeque, kirgizique, tajikique, ukranique." — Timwi 17:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It reads like some form of obscure french creole, probably with many spelling mistakes and some effort for translation into english. strange enough! It says that "Russia is a state Asian and European of origin (?) with diploma (?) unique and economic problems because of the 1991 revolution by (?) the communist (?) party." then it lists the nations contained within the soviet union. Can anyone understand the origin of this language?

Benjy[edit]

This was a valid article on a character from the Beano.

  • Keep deleted - Please sign your nominations or they will be removed. Benjy was full of racist statements and was properly removed. Feel free to create a new article with more appropriate text. - Tεxτurε 19:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Contained nothing relevant to Beano and no useful information. Angela. 01:21, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Shawn Mikula[edit]

I have made several contributions to the wikipedia and yet any and all legitimate references in my contributions (including Baseline Consciousness and Consciousness Singularity) to Shawn Mikula (who is related to the topics in many of the pages I created) continue to be deleted without any reason given, and the Shawn Mikula page I created has been removed and page protected by Tεxτurε. The Shawn Mikula page I created wasn't even close to a vanity page, and merely said "Shawn Mikula (born in Castellon, Spain on February 28, 1976) is a neuroscientist at the Mind-Brain Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. ". I think this amounts to abuse of the 'Page Protection' feature by Tεxτurε and am requesting that the Shawn Mikula page be re-instated, that my references to the page on other pages be re-instated, and that Tεxτurε 'Page Protection' privilege be removed since he has been abusing this privilege. 193.255.207.252 18:03, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted - The page Shawn Mikula about this user was voted for in VfD and deleted per policy. The user violated policy by recreating the page over and over and it had to be deleted. The page is currently protected rather than blocking each user IP as he logs back in to create the page again in contradiction of the vote. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion vote was for a completely different page with a lot more content than it has now. I could see people complaining about it being a vanity page or too biographical, but now it is a one sentence description that cannot quality as vanity, but that can only be described as an appropriate page since many other pages here are related and cite the Shawn Mikula page. 193.255.207.252 18:16, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vanity has nothing to do with the content of the page. If there is a dispute over a pages content it is considered a NPOV dispute. If, on the other hand, the dispute is over whether the page should even be on wiki (read: whether said person is notable enough to deserve mention on wiki) then it goes to the vfd. The fact that the page has been rewritten does not change the conclusion of the vfd. --Starx 23:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Nothing untoward happened in the deletion process, unless you count many IPs trying to vote. Morwen 18:15, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - This user has quite the nerve to accuse Texture of abuse after his antics on VfD and repeated ban evasion. Needless to say, Texture did the right thing in protecting the page to prevent its recreation, a tactic which has been used in such cases in the past. I suggest Shawn take a look at Wikinfo and leave Wikipedia to those who respect its policies and seek to enrich it. -- Hadal 18:22, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hadal, you are one of the offenders too who has repeated removed legitimate citations to Shawn Mikula, even though you have offered no basis or reason for doing so. And I have enriched wikipedia by adding several pages. There is no justification for this sort of abuse. It's shameful that some admins abuse their power, and this sort of abuse needs to be stopped. 193.255.207.252 18:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, stop being disingenuous. Second, you were blocked for your actions and chose to disrespect that block by continuing to rotate IPs. Your additions to the articles concerned were merely an attempt to preserve what had already been removed via VfD. A tip: you'd seem a lot more credible to outsiders if you dispensed with the martyr act and owned up to your many abuses. The fact that you haven't been blocked again shows we're not out to silence you; rather, we're out to stop you from littering. And anyway, this isn't the place to bitch about admin actions. See Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions. -- Hadal 18:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the link. I did not engage in any abuse, unless you call my trying to post articles with relevant citations abuse. But believe me, that's not abuse as I understand the term. The blatant censuring that has been propagated by a few admins is abuse. This is somewhat funny because the ones who propagate the abuse do not have the qualifications to be making such decisions, and so what they're doing is abuse, there's no other word for it. And I should re-iterate that my contributions cannot be posted without a relevant citation to Shawn Mikula, and by keeping them posted without the relevant citation amounts to theft and copyright violation. 193.255.207.252 18:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me understand what you are saying: Are the following copyrighted material?:
            • Neural Connectivity
            • Consciousness Singularity
            • Expanded Consciousness
            • Neural coding
            • Baseline consciousness
            - Tεxτurε 18:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, those articles are copyright material that may not be posted without, at the very least, an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles. So, if you want, remove all the articles, but please do not keep up the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles without an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula. 193.255.207.252 19:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If what you submitted is copyrighted by someone other than yourself, you should not have submitted it in the first place. If it is copyrighted by you, by submitting it to Wikipedia you have released it under the GNU FDL (a license which does not require your citation). In either case, throwing legal insinuations around isn't going to win you any points here. Wikipedia values any non-copyrighted contributions you have to make; all we ask is that you respect our policies. -- Hadal 19:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                • I do not mind competent knowledgable individuals editing pages, but you are not one of those people to be editing my pages. Don't take it personally. There are few people who have such qualifications (who are specialized and know the scientific literature very well). I have not met any yet at wikipedia. All I'm saying is that, just because some people don't understand something or have never heard of it, does not mean it's unimportant to people who do understand and who have heard. I made those pages because I thought other people would find them useful and informative, and I did not count on others unjustifiably removing legitimate cititations that would result in copyright violations. Maybe it was a mistake on my part to presume that people would know their place and would respect other people's works, and that would not edit things outside their sphere of competence.193.255.207.252 19:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. --Starx 23:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Start community fund to hire someone to hit user upside the head periodically. Snowspinner 19:22, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and ban this multi-sock puppet pretentious grad student. RickK 19:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with being a pretentiouis grad student. :P Snowspinner 19:32, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are so transparent, RickK, you green-eyed monster, you. 193.255.207.252 19:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement:
"Maybe it was a mistake on my part to presume that people would know their place and would respect other people's works, and that would not edit things outside their sphere of competence."
shows that you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia's mission is at a fundamental level. You seem to be suffering from something called ASD. I don't think there's yet a twelve-step programme, but perhaps there should be. In any event, please clarify the copyright status of the articles concerned. -- Hadal 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hadal, if that's what rocks your boat, then more power to you. The copyright status is that the citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity stay, or all five pages I contributed should be removed. 193.255.207.252 19:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added your five contributions to Wikipedia:Copyright problems as being refused GFDL and having outside copyright. - Tεxτurε 20:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, thanks. And let me just say that it says a lot that no admins at wikipedia stepped up to the plate to do the right thing, which would be to argue in favor of including the relevant citations. I'm not sure whether it's simply due to ignorance, whether the right admins didn't see this discussion, or what, but in any event, I don't think it bodes well for wikipedia to know that such ignorance and provinciality runs rampant through this site. Again, my apologies to the more intelligent and sincere admins who did not see this discussion for whatever reason. It is my sincere hope that those who did participate in this discussion will one day wake up to the error of their ways and the injustice that they permitted to propagate, and that they will become better admins in the process. 193.255.207.252 20:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • You gave an ultimatum, give you credit in the articles or delete them. Guess which one of those violates Wikipedia standard practice. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:00, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
          • It was new content that I was contributing. It's not like I was trying to edit someone else's page. I was submitting entirely new pages that did not conflict with anyone else's pages and yet some admins felt the need to modify it even though they gave no reasons for it (maybe because they believed I was Shawn Mikula and hence citing myself, which is patently absurd) and were, in any event, unqualified to edit my submitted pages. I don't think they expect unqualified people to unjustifiably mess with their pages, so why would they presume that I would react any differently? I do not want an answer. It's obvious to me what happened here. The real admins of this site, the site owners, really need to find better ways for controlling the abuse by people they designate as admins, or else their site is going to suffer at their hands and be of much lower quality than it could be. 193.255.207.252 21:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • Have you read about Free content? Or about Wikipedia? - Tεxτurε 21:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • yes I have. Let's recount the facts here: I posted a bio of Shawn Mikula here which was accused of being a vanity page, and then posted new pages and new content, some of which cited the Shawn Mikula. As a result, several admins felt compelled to go on a witch-hunt to remove any and all citations to Shawn Mikula, an injustice that would not have been perpetrated if, for example, the Shawn Mikula page was not created in the first place. Because of the Shawn Mikula page, many admins presumed that any and all citations to Shawn Mikula must be a vanity issue and thus deleted. And that's what lies at the heart of this injustice, is that perfectly legitimate citations are being removed because some admins have formed erroneous notions, notions that would not have been formed if I had never created the Shawn Mikula page in the first place. If I had not created that page, the citations to Shawn Mikula in the other articles would not have been deleted. I understand your insistance against vanity pages, but I also understand that there's such a thing as going overboard. I think what happened here is a perfect example of good intentions (i.e., delete vanity pages) gone amok. 193.255.207.252 21:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll just take that as a "no"... - Tεxτurε 21:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                  • and that's just the sort of response that underscores the carelessness about admin abuse evinced by many of the admins perpetrating the abuse. It's just blatantly irresponsible behavior. Perhaps it's unfortunate that many of the admins here do not possess the qualifications to administrate responsibly, but I think it's a good thing that those above you in the hierarchy here will be made aware of this so that they will have the opportunity to decide whether to take actions to remedy this sort of abuse. Mediation and arbitration look like other avenues worth exploring, too. 193.255.207.252 21:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Above"? "Hierarchy"? You could try mediation, but I doubt you'll get the results you expect. There's nothing irresponsible about deleting material where the author refuses to accept Wikipedia's terms. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to. Your unrelenting name-calling isn't winning you any friends, either. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:17, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
                      • What is there of name calling? I have described the situation as it is two posts up. No-one has responded to it because they know I'm right and what they did was wrong, and no-one has the balls to own up to it. 193.255.207.252 22:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Where you're calling people irresponsible and ignorant, and calling RickK a "green-eyed monster". Nobody's responding to it because it looks like the desperate act of a vanity poster whose articles are about to be deleted. You see, we've seen all these arguments before. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:44, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
                          • The name-calling was not meant to be taken too personally, and I apologize if anyone took it personally. I was just trying to argue my case against what seemed to be a mob. About RickK, I responded to him in the same language that he replied to me. Maybe I shouldn't have done that, but with some people, you need to talk their language even if it means getting in the mud with them. 193.255.207.252 22:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think you're really missing the point here. You submitted the content under the GFDL. When you edit to make a reply to this, read the text at the bottom. The part that begins "All contributions to Wikipedia." Specifically the line "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." you do not have any position, legal or otherwise, with which to demand that a contribution appear in a certain way. If that's what you wanted, then you shouldn't have submitted to Wikipedia. Snowspinner 22:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

<<< Indent level reduced for readability.

  • Well then I would have to consider what was done to my pages as blatant vandalism by a bunch of vandals calling themselves admins. 193.255.207.252 22:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nice. Irrelevent to the matter of copyrigt, but nice. Snowspinner 22:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought so. Maybe a little bit overdramatic. 193.255.207.252 22:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, let's clarify - are you still making a copyright claim about the articles or not?
          • As much as I'd like to make the pages available to everyone on wikipedia, I also feel very strongly about what I regard as giving proper credit where proper credit is due (i.e., in the two citations). And so, I can't, at least for the time being, annul the copyright claim. Maybe some other time, though. 193.255.207.252 22:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then we'll be deleting the pages. Thank you for clearing that up. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:47, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
            • That statement is basically an admission that he is in fact Shawn Mikula. If these works are copyrighted by Mikula then only he can legally submit them to wikipedia. You either a) violated the copyright policy by submitting works copyrighted by someone else, or b) released your work under the GFDL. Which is it? --Starx 23:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • It should go without saying that I deny said admission, which should answer your question, Starx. 193.255.207.252 23:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

<<< Indent level reduced for readability.

  • If you're not Mr. Mikula, then you're in violation of his copyright by posting his material here under the GFDL. Incidentally, this makes all your arguments about irresponsible, ignorant admins void. -- Cyrius|&#9998 23:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • no, it doesn't. It was a conditional copyright that was involved. The ignorant, irresponsible admins I have referred to in previous posts violated that copyright by vandalizing my posted copyright material. They had absolutely no business vandalizing those pages and they know it even if they don't admit it. And that's what this is really about, not about conditional copyrights. It's about unqualified admins unjustifiably vandalizing other people's pages, and it's not right. What happened here is comparable to a nuclear physicist creating an unbiased page on nuclear fusion, and then a bunch of buffoons come in and remove all citations because they feel like it or because they've never heard of the person, and they never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, they are not qualified to be editing the page at all, and that their buffoonery makes a mockery of the expert's page. And then they all put their heads together, these buffoons, and try to think of ways to evade simply giving a legitimate and straightforward reason for all of their buffoonery. You can say, well, these guys are a bunch of clowns, and I would concur, and say that clowns can be clownish all they want on their own time, but when they start interfering with other peoples work, then something should be done about it to stop these clowns. Do you now understand what has transpired here? 193.255.207.252 00:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the point that you are trying to make and you might have had good intentions. But, please note that Wikipedia does not practice "conditional copyrights". It only accepts material released under GNU FDL license without such constraints. I recommend reading our copyright policies before engaging into further arguments. Andris 00:26, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • It is about copyrights. There were no conditional copyrights involved because the GFDL does not permit conditional copyrights. You can't rewrite the terms before agreeing to them. Also, admins are not the only people who voted to delete the Mikula page, or who reverted the refrences. You continue to talk about "your work" and "qualifications" and all that, but those concepts do not exist on wikipedia so any claimes based on those arguments are void. That was pointed out to you several times and you refused to acknowledge it. Instead you continue with your irrelevent line of logic and then complain when things don't go your way. Wikipedia is not going to adapt to the way you want things done. You have to play by the same rules as everyone else. --Starx 00:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • and you, Starx, refuse to see this matter from any other perspective than from your own. Where is the understanding in that? Where is the open-mind in that? 193.255.207.252 00:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you mean to say is that I don't see the matter from your point of view, which is frustrating for you because of the many POV's expressed in this debate that is the only one that favors the restoration of the article. --Starx 01:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I still think the Shawn Mikula page should be undeleted, so that issue hasn't been resolved yet. 193.255.207.252 01:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it has, since you've noted that your contributions are not released under the GFDL, making it illegal for us to host that page at all. Snowspinner 01:07, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not, since I want the Shawn Mikula page undeleted and that page does not violate any copyright. I have seen only a few responses from admins over the issue of undeleting the Shawn Mikula page, and I have heard no reasons for keeping it deleted. 193.255.207.252 01:09, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • The vfd concluded that the page should be deleted, that is the reason. --Starx 01:14, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • The page that got deleted originally is not the same as the one sentence stub I want to create for the Shawn Mikula, and that's why it's on the 'Votes for Undeletion' page. I have yet to hear any good reasons for its continued state of deletion. 70.16.2.19 01:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because if it was simply the content of the page that was in question it would have been a NOPV dispute and would have been handled through means other then a vfd. The vfd concerned the fact that Mikula is not notable enough to warrant a page, reguardless of length. --Starx 01:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • The issue seemed to me that it was deleted because it was believed a vanity page. If it's an issue of notability, I challenge anyone to come up with someone with superior qualifications in all of the areas that the original Shawn Mikula page indicated he was competent in. If you can't do it, and I already know that you can't, then it proves notability, and that means the page should be undeleted.70.16.2.19 01:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                • The term vanity refers to an article written on a non-notable person, POV refers to a bais in an article towards one viewpoint. As to your challenge, you keep bringing up others to compare Mikula too, this is not gererally an effective form of debate. Support of the Mikula page should be made through arguments relating to Mikula, not arguments against others who happen to have a page. This is all irrelevent though. You pleaded your case quite enthusiastically and vfd concluded with a delete. That is that. --Starx 01:34, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                  • well that's not quite it since I have options. And even when you think I have exhausted them all, I still have many you may not be aware of. And I issued the challenge simply to point out that it could not be met and to prove notability. Thus, there is still no good reason for deletion other than the whim and whimsy of a few admins. Where is the community? Where is the consensus in that? And why should these actions by just a handful of admins not be considered abuse? 70.16.2.19 01:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Everyone get's 1 vote only on a vfd reguardless of admin status. It was not simply a handful of admins that decided to delete the page, it was the community. --Starx 01:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I do not think it was an unbiased or objective vote. I think many admins just like to "follow the crowd", or in this case, to "follow the other admins". I think many people are incapable (or otherwise reluctant) of thinking for themselves and so they ape others. Hence, the "consensus" of which you speak. Regardless, that vote was on a different page. I would like a new page reconsidered. 70.16.2.19 01:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

<<< Indent level reduced for readability.

  • A new page would circumvent the vfd process. It was decided that Mikula did not need an article about him. If you browse through the other vfd's you'll see that it is not uncommon for people to suggest that articles are stubbified or merged elsewhere, it's not an either/or keep/delete type of thing. The fact that the majority of people choose to vote delete shows that they saw no redeeming value in the page. As to the follow the herd comment, people are allowed to caste their vote however they see fit, do you have any evidence that people are not exercising their own judgement? I doubt you could produce any. --Starx 02:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • My evidence is that most of the votes were canned responses like "delete. vanity" or "delete. not notable" and offered nothing in the way of an explanation for why they voted in such a way. Thus, I think most admins happened on the vote, and saw that other admins voted it was a "vanity page", and then, they went to the page having already decided that it was a vanity page before they saw it, well lo and behold, they see a "vanity page", which they see as such because they already formed it in their heads that it was going to be a vanity page because a few other admins had misjudged it thus. Hence, you see practically the same types of responses from other admins, essentially aping the responses of the initial admins. And the thing is, even if someone else wanted to add the page at some future date, they can't because of User:Texture's abuse of his 'Protected Page' privilege. And so, based on a mere handful of admins who misjudged, it escalates to this situation where everyone is unjustifiably dead-set against the page because, god forbid, admins can't be wrong. You admins have to stick together like a flock of sheep to protect yourselves from any "wolves". Or at least that how it's coming across to me. 70.16.2.19 02:12, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • A large majority of people casting similar votes is not evidence of herd mentality. It is evidence of a shared opinion on the topic. You need evidence of behavior that shows herd mentality without being consistent with shared opinions. Without that evidence votes are taken in good faith. --Starx 02:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen enough herd mentality to recognize its signs. While it's possible it was shared opinions, I am very sceptical, and this should not be surprising to you, just like it's not surprising to me that you should choose to believe that it was shared opinions. In the absence of hard evidence, I guess this is a moot topic. 70.16.2.19 02:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also (seperating the issues into diffrent threads for convenience) Texture's use of his admin privilages was not abuse. He was preventing you from recreating a page that was deleted via vfd because to do so would be a violation of wiki policy. Vfd'd pages stay gone unless revived via this page. He used his powers exactly as they were meant to be used. --Starx 02:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what if other people wanted to start the page at some future date? They can't even do that now.70.16.2.19 02:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pages are not protected perminantly, but that's really beside the point. The decision has been made that as things stand Mikula is not notable enough to warrent a page. If we wait a week and then another person creates a Mikula page that fact will not have changed. When Mikula gain's more noteriety then maybe someone else will create a page. But keep in mind were not talking a week or even a couple months, we're talking far in the future. For now the vfd decision stands so the protection on the page is moot point. Note that the creation of a page that was previously vfd'd is cause for a speedy deletion (#5). --Starx 02:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You miss the point. You have made clear that your contributions are not released under the GFDL by raising copyright complaints. Accordingly, none of your contributions can stay in Wikipedia - we only host GFDL content. Snowspinner 01:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • My contribution to the Shawn Mikula page can and should stay in wikipedia. 70.16.2.19 01:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't pick and choose like that. We need to know from the start whether your contributions are distributed under the GFDL or not. You said they were when you submitted the edits. Now you have said they are not. Now you're back to saying they are. To be honest, I am not inclined to suffer endless changes of mind on the licensing of this content - as far as I'm concerned, your contributions should no longer be allowed in on the grounds that you do not comply with the GFDL. Snowspinner 01:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • But we are not talking about the other pages that violated copyright. We are talking about the Shawn Mikula page that does not violate copyright. 70.16.2.19 01:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're missing the point. You said that your submissions to Wikipedia were governed by your copyright, and thus not by the GFDL. Thus none of your articles are acceptable - even the ones you say are still in the state you give permission for. Since you assert the right to dictate how the articles may appear, they will not appear at all. Snowspinner 02:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not trying to dictate how the Shawn Mikula page appears. I wanted, at the very least, a stub or something that other people could add to, but now people can't even start a stub even if they wanted to. 70.16.2.19 02:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • But you have already tried to dictate how other pages appear. Which means that you do not follow the GFDL. You can't expect us to guess whether a given contribution is actually under the GFDL or not. All your stuff is either in or out. You said out, so it's out. Snowspinner 02:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                • You know I was not trying to absolutely dictate how other pages appeared. My request was modest. I would be perfectly willing to follow the GFDL if there was a more reasonable way to deal with admins who I somehow magically compel to become dead-set against me. But it seems that anything I post will now be attacked by a handful of admins who get a kick out of it. 70.16.2.19 02:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The modesty of the request is beside the point - you tried to attach conditions beyond what the GFDL allows. You do not get to follow the GFDL until the admins annoy you. You decided not to follow it, the matter is therefore over. Snowspinner 02:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are trying to argue that because I tried to dictate some parts of some pages that got removed for copyright issues, that I will try to dictate how the Shawn Mikula page appears, and that's simply not the case. I would like at least a stub that other people could add to, or barring that, at least the option for someone else to start the page in the future. Your arguments that the page shouldn't exist because I'll try to dictate how it looks do not hold because I have already made it clear that I have no intentions of doing such a thing, and because it's clear that there are no copyright issues involved with this. Look, I promise to follow the GFDL from now on (even if the admins annoy me) and apologize for the misunderstanding I had with it earlier. It is all very clear to me now. 70.16.2.19 02:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I am saying that because you said your work was not submitted under the GFDL, none of your stuff can go up. This is not out of any concerns one way or another about you putting down a copyright claim. It's that this is a free encyclopedia, and that content is not free. As for your assurances to follow the GFDL now... honestly, I don't trust you on it. You've switched positions on whether you follow the GFDL once - and people have graciously removed the content for you, despite the fact that you hit Save Page when it clearly says that you were releasing under the GFDL. But all the content is being deleted, because you insisted you hadn't submitted it under the GFDL. So no, I'm not inclined to let you change your mind again on the GFDL - especially when the concept of the GFDL was being pointed out to you in the previous debate. That was the time to understand what you were doing - not now. Snowspinner 02:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah well, your choice. Hope you choose wisely.70.16.2.19 02:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • and this still does not change the fact that a Shawn Mikula page should be up, or that users should have the ability to create the page in the future. 70.16.2.19 02:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is resolved. There is no further discussion needed. The article was a vanity article about a person who does not deserve space in a real encyclopedia. The article went through the proper, established Wikipedia process, and consensus was to delete it. RickK 03:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(Shawn stuff copied to BJAODN) Duncharris 15:50, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Ibero-Caucasian peoples and Talk:Ibero-Caucasian peoples[edit]

These pages are cited as evidence in the arbitration hearing concerning ChrisO and Levzur. See the evidence page. I would like to request that these pages be undeleted for the purposes of arbitration and moved to someplace under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Ibero-Caucasian peoples consists of a page move to User:Zestauferov/Iberian Problem and then a blanking, and that of Talk:Ibero-Caucasian peoples consists of a page move to User talk:Zestauferov/Iberian Problem and then a blanking (both moves and both blanks were done by User:Zestauferov). There doesn't appear to be any point in undeleting these pages, therefore. The old history should be preserved at the new locations. I'll make a note of this on the respective arbitration page. --Camembert

Daniel C. Boyer[edit]

Consensus was to keep deleted. Only one vote to undelete. Discussion moved to Template:VfD-Daniel C Boyer.

Bolivarian Revolution[edit]

and Revolución Bolivariana seems to be a talk page on this but no actual article - is this normal? The talk page has some very anti-chavez sentiments on it ... Is this the reason the Bolivarian revolution links don't work in Hugo Chavez? I would like the article (if there is one) reinstated and linked to Hugo Chavez cheers, user:max rspct 20.56 1st jan 2005 (utc)

  • Delete should stay deleted. Salazar 06:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


André Nilsen[edit]

There are lots of wiki-links to this person - from 'Oxford Council on Good Governance', 'Norway Scholarship', and 'Norway Model United Nations Society'. Given all the organizations he has set up and all the policy areas in which he is active, it would seem apposite with a brief mention. He is certainly more notable than many other people with a short bio here. Cheers, Erik

This was added at 01:55, Dec 28, 2004, so it expires at 01:55 Jan 7, 2005. It is currently 02:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC), so I am delisting it from this page. Since the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, the page remains deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News

Keep deleted

  1. keep deleted. "lots" is a wild exaggerration. Mikkalai 22:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Keep Deleted, the wiki links are only there because someone, possibly Andre himself, has been editing them into lots of articles. In most cases they are not relevant to the article and can be safely deleted; If you think removing of the content shouldn't happen, just remove the [[ ]]'s from the link. --fvw* 02:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  3. Keep deleted and delink. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Keep deleted. Content of deleted article recreated (and redeleted) at A. Nilsen today. Part of a persistant promo campaign for the Oxford Council on Good Governance. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Keep deleted. Andris 16:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Keep deleted. There has been no new evidence since the VfD to suggest that the consensus to delete should be invalidated. SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Keep deleted: DCEdwards1966 21:31, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Keep deleted. Incidentally, a Google search for "Andre Nilsen" turns up decidedly unpleasant results, so don't click "I'm feeling lucky." — Dan | Talk 21:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ugh. We should keep this article undeleted if for no other reason than to steal the top google spot from that crap. anthony 警告 22:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Keep deleted. VfD is in the normal place: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/André Nilsen jni 17:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Keep deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 09:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Keep deleted. And encourage Erik to get an account, they're free. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Nope. Keep deleted. Especially since "Charlotte" recreated the article right before voting here. And she talks about respect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Keep deleted. Valid VfD process. RickK 21:49, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Keep deleted. CryptoDerk 00:23, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Undelete

  1. Undelete; he is clearly important to the context of several other articles. --Ryan! | Talk 16:19, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Several" is wild exaggerration. The article about him says that he is leader/organiser of two student organisations, which are barely notable by themselves, on a brink of VfD. He studied in half-dozen of schools. Still studies in Oxford. Good for him. Mikkalai 22:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Undelete. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 11:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep undeleted. anthony 警告 14:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Undelete. GRider\talk 18:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Before doing a google search, I suggest you learn to spell. Here is the result for André Nilsen. As you can see, he is more than deserving of a Wikipedia entry, returing 43,000 hits. Undelete. Dan100 08:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let he who is capable of formulating a search give the first google link. this is more like it, at less than 10k hits. Exclude wikipedia articles and you're left with 5k hits, the majority of which are about other André Nilsen's. Even I score more google hits than that. --fvw* 09:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
      Comment: I have noted that many previous google tests have not used quotes. I did not use quotes for reasons of fair-testing and consistency. Dan100 09:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comments and anonymous votes

  • Comment: Erik, unfortunately wikipedia is not consistent between what is here and seems to set a precedent, and what will actually survive a Vote for Deletion. I'm sorry if you time has been wasted, but I won't vote because the (broken) procedure appears to have been followed. Kappa 02:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The deletion policy suggests that an article that is many times re-created and deleted should probably exist. Apply the policy. In any case, there is absolutely nothing in our policy that suggests that you have to be a world leader in your field to be "notable".Dr Zen 23:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That suggestion is only a suggestion and not a policy to prevent someone from forcing an article's existence by continually recreating it. If several different people, at different times, create an article on Thimble, then maybe we should have an article on thimbles. If one person continually recreates an article that was deleted by VfD, that is vandalism, and not a suggestion that the article should exist. SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I have actually followed the history of this article and if you bother checking you will in fact see that a number of people in several different countries have contributed to and recreated this article. Don't talk with your head in the sand. Cheers, Erik
        • Erik, the head is up and the eyes wide open. I did check before making that statement. I saw that the recreation of the article was the same text as what was deleted by VfD. So it was by different IPs. No difference. If that's all it took, no article would ever stay deleted. "See, we've recreated it several times so now you have to let it stay." That is clearly not the intention of the caution (which, BTW, does not apply to content deleted by VfD). Reposting content that was deleted by VfD is grounds for speedy deletion, not a way to force undeletion. SWAdair | Talk 23:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That does not make much sense. First, if you disregard the recreation of an article from different IPs, then you make it impossible for the policy to work, which cannot have been the intention of those who wrote it. Second, if the policy says that recreation of deleted articles should be taken as evidence that the article should be allowed to stay, then by definition that policy applies to articles deleted by VfD - what else could it apply to??? This is a good policy, so please pay heed to it. Peter, Oxford
  • Comment: Where is the VfD for this? I have been through the available archives and found nothing. I'd much appreciate it if someone could find it for me! Dan100 09:13, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. A lot of people in several countries have over the past month either repeatedly restored this article or voiced their support for it being allowed to stay. Unfortunately, a bunch of wikipedia-dictators who themselves admit they base their decisions more on emotions than reason keep deleting them and protecting the pages against recreation. According to the wikipedia deletion policy, constant recreation of a deleted page should be taken by the community as a sign that an article should stay. Please respect this. Charlotte
    • The reasons of deletion were presented. Emotions are expressed not towards the article, but towards numerous voters who engage in word games instead of improving the article to the level that would be acceptable for restoration. Mikkalai 19:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think for a lot of people (including myself), no article no matter how nice would do until his notability had increased. --fvw* 20:08, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Looks interesting. Notable enough. How do I get an account here by the way? Sienna
    • You are acting both obtuse and insulting. There is a link to Create an account or log in on every page on Wikipedia. Further, you are the same editor as "Peter, Oxford", which is easy to see in your IPs and contribs. I expect that if I check the other contribs, I will find that you are also "Charlotte" and "Erik". Does your real name sound like André Nilsen? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry to disappoint you but did it ever occur to you that in a university with several thousand students and faculty quite a few people will actually share the same first numbers in an IP address? No? I thought so. Don't worry. You know it now.
        • It is very unlikely that two different users would have their edit histories mesh so well. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:34, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Given the lack of consensus, the article should be allowed to stay. Peter, Oxford
    • Also note, both unsigned votes above came from 163.1.160.* CryptoDerk 00:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The article should stay. Koovah:3M
    • YA-UselessAnonVote.
  • Undelete this article. Can someone please restore the original version - the longer one? Per Arne
  • Undelete. Rafael
    • That's odd, a month ago you were called christiane. --fvw* 02:26, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Liquid Democracy[edit]

Jimbo received an in-person question about this one at the conference he's currently attending, so I undeleted it for its stay here to help he and his questioner find out what was happening - helping him to present a good impression seems worthwhile. Jamesday 21:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liquid Democracy. Mikkalai 00:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Unlike those who voted to delete, I'm familiar with this. The concept exists and is distinct from the concepts in the see also section. If you do a google check, do remember not to exclude every page which links to the Wikipedia page explaining the concept the page is talking about...:) Jamesday 21:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Same, undelete. Danny 21:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, still a non-notable neologism. I'm fine with the temp-undeleting for VfU though, perhaps we could always do that? --fvw* 13:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Undelete. --Ryan! | Talk 16:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. GRider\talk 18:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I agree that a temp undelete might be usful for the VfU process. Any temp undelete should probably be protected. DCEdwards1966 21:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Protecting a temp undelete is sometimes acceptable (although protecting a page which is listed on VfD isn't). Destroying the page first, then protecting it, isn't acceptable either. anthony 警告 21:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Legitimate article, cannot see any reason for deletion. Dan100 09:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep deleted. No proofs of notability of concept. Of two ext links in the article, one is one-guy phylosophy, the second one is blog that discusses the first one. Mikkalai 20:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This page has been "temporarily undeleted" for a week now, and Anthony decided to move the temp VfU header to the talk page to make it more obscure. Can we redelete it now, since the votes are clearly to Keep deleted? RickK 21:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Mikkalai 23:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this vote violates the policy, since there was no notice at the VFD page, see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Doing this now and request the extenstion of the term (nonexpired anyway.) Mikkalai 23:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your cooperation. Since the Undeletion request was not done appropriately, as you clearly indicated above, this undeletion is inappropriate, and I will re-delete it. RickK`
        • A rather unexpected interpretation of the word "cooperation", I must say. :-) Mikkalai 00:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Works for me. But if a proper VfU comes up, consider this a keep deleted vote. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taikyoku sandan[edit]

A karate exercise, currently the only red link in Shotokan karate. It's the last of a series of 3. #2 in the series, Taikyoku nidan, is in VFD at the moment, and appears to have a near consensus to merge. From the deletion log, the contents were: Third (and last) of the Taikyoku Shotokan kata series. Same layout as the two first ones (1,2), b... Kappa 00:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It doesn't need to be undeleted to be merged; I'll just give you the contents. Is that sufficient? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well OK, I merged it with Taikyoku shodan, the first in the series. Thanks Kappa 06:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a violation of the GFDL to copy/paste content without attribution. anthony 警告 00:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point. I removed it from this page. The article it was merged into was written by the same IP as the deleted page, so there's attrib there. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Medical Specialist Centre[edit]

There was this article and I recreated it. However, many opposed to the deletion, although a few wanted to keep it. Reasons why the article should be here:

  1. No reasons why Hospital articles should be deleted. There are many other Hospital articles, see Category:Hospitals and List of Hospitals There are a lot of Hospitals, and many people opposes to the existence of the article. However, many other Hospital articles were not vfd and I tested one of them, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and everybody agreed to keep the article. The Medical Specialist Centre is also a Hospital article, but why should it be deleted since others are not? I didn't mean that I was jealous, but I vfd the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario simply for a comparison. Why should decent hospitals be deleted?

For your information, the article was deleted by Gtabary

If anyone thinks that the article should exist or not, please vote.

Thanks. Chan Han XiangChan Han Xiang01.18, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

  • Clarification: The article was not deleted by Gtabary, who is not an admin and thus could not do so. The article has now been deleted three times; once following a VfD; the other two times on the Dec. 29th and the Dec. 31st, after having been recreated by the author. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Legitimate hospital article. Undelete. anthony 警告 19:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Was deleted within process. Also, in the VfD of the very notable hospital mentioned above, User:Geogre put it best: "Medical Specialist Centre" was subliterate, misnamed, and established no notability of the thing at all. Its author is now peevishly VfD nominating things in revenge. Chan Han Xiang's recreation of this article after it was deleted multiple times is a waste of time and misuse of the Wiki process. CryptoDerk 19:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Question; where is the vfd debate? Dunc|☺ 19:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - VFD seems in order - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: DCEdwards1966 21:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Legit article. Dan100 08:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Deleted after valid VfD, re-created twice in abuse of VfD. Jayjg | (Talk) 09:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. VfD was legitimate. Mackensen (talk) 17:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Though VfD appears to have been legitimate, creator seems to show a willingness to create a new stubby version, and edit for NPOV. If restored article needs editing, edit it — and label it as needing cleanup. Gavin White 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (PST)

January 7[edit]

Dumbrella[edit]

The article was removed due to incorrect VFD procedure. Voting was going for only 2 days with two keeps and 5 deletes. Then it was delisted from vfd and 2 weeks later the article mysteriously disappeared. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dumbrella. Grue 07:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • From the log: 04:17, Dec 29, 2004 SimonP deleted Dumbrella (listed on VfD, votes 5-2 in favour of deletion) Can you provide a link to the "improperly combined vote"? 5/7 is "rough consensus" in my book, so keep deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue brought up wasn't the tally, it was the length of the vote. I see it was listed on VfD at 06:29, 2004 Dec 21 and was listed until 21:11, 2004 Dec 27. Seems in order to me. -- Netoholic @ 09:03, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    • But isn't it suspicious that most of the people who vote on VFD on a regular basis completely missed this nomination? I'll blame Christmas for that - maybe the people who vote "keep" on everything had better things to do during that time. Still, I think it was a proper article (you can see no one gave a good reason to delete it, "not notable" doesn't count) which was created long ago, and if it was listed at another time, I'm sure the consensus would be to keep. Grue 10:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it wasn't suspicious. I vote on VfD on a fairly regular basis but I vote selectively. My best reason for voting is when I actually have some special knowledge bearing on the topic. I have other less commendable reasons for voting, but I certainly don't attempt to vote systematically on every debate, particularly on obvious deletes whose outcome does not seem to be in doubt. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No obvious or significant violation of process, probably no violation at all, and nothing about the article suggests that the outcome was inappropriate. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Deleted content consisted of a single sentence, a list of six members of Dumbrella, and a link to http://www.dumbrella.com. Single sentence was: Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Dumbrella is an alliance of webcomic artists who promote one another's sites, travel to conventions, and sell merchandise together.
    • Well, Keenspot is 4 sentences, a list of members and some links. I don't see how it is a better article. Any kind of information is useful in Wikipedia and having these 6 comics in one place would've been very handy. Grue 19:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Properly deleted according to process, no compelling reason to undelete. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There was no compelling reason to delete it either. Grue 18:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The fact that the VfD passed 5-2 is a compelling reason to delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I know nothing about the article nor about the Vfd arguments, but the fact that it was deleted following process means that it cannot come up again for undeletion just because you don't like the results. RickK 23:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The process was obviously faulty, 7 votes is way below average, and 2 days vote span is ridiculous. Grue 06:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems that it is only obvious to you. From my experience on VfD, people often don't vote on something if there's already consensus to delete it. As already pointed out, the vote span was normal. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • This looks like it was blown out of proportion, why not rewrite with more material. If the article had had any substance, I'm sure it would've have failed deletion! bernlin2000 ∞ 22:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd like to note that I never edited the article in question nor I'm affiliated with Dumbrella in any way. It's just that this article helped me to identify the name of the comic I've read a while ago (Diesel Sweeties it was). Of course I noticed article only because it went to VfD, but since it was useful for me I'll do all I can to return it back. But since I lack the knowledge on the topic, if someone is going to resurrect it, it would be not me. Grue 06:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: no procedural problem, and no new evidence of notability. Btw this is my 2nd attempt to vote on this item; previous attempt showed up in the page history but not the page text. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No evidence that the deletion process was violated. jni 16:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No evidence that the deletion process was violated. —Stormie 11:34, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • So what? The example of Jam 1575 below shows that factual articles on notable (48 900 Google hits) topics could and should be undeleted. As for the VfD process, it wasn't followed to the letter, that's for sure. All former VfDs should have "This page is no longer live" reminder and the time when the voting closed. How's that for violation? Grue 06:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undeletion at this point in time seems premature. Perhaps in the future if they start making a name for themselves as a group (the individuals mostly have already). -- Cyrius|✎ 07:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Kara-Khanid[edit]

  • withdrawn

Content was: '{delete}}== Headline text ==the karakhanids came from uighurs ethnic group,they are one of the kingdoom of uighurs when the orkhon uighur empire bro...')

Looks like the beginning of a reasonable stub about an ethnic group. Please undelete or post the rest of it. Kappa 20:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the entire text of the page at the time it was deleted. The "headline text" is given that way within the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Deleted revision as of 26 Jan 2005)
Headline text
the karakhanids came from uighurs ethnic group,they are one of the kingdoom of uighurs when the orkhon uighur empire broked uighurs spread to three kingdooms first one is khotan,khoja and karakhanids.
  • OK thanks that wasn't enough to be very useful, those kingdoms don't google very well, so keep deleted. I'll remake something if I can figure out what's what. Kappa 21:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Anthony_DiPierro/Shawn_Mikula[edit]

User:Anthony_DiPierro/Shawn Mikula was speedily deleted out of process. Its contents were completely different from that of the VfD-deleted Shawn Mikula. I left a message on the talk page of User:David Gerard, but he deleted it without a response. Also of interest may be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive7#Anthony and Mikula, in which two admins agreed that the page was not a speedy deletion candidate. However, Snowspinner repeatedly added the CSD notice and blocked me twice for removing it. After several days, User:David Gerard made the deletion, apparently agreeing with Snowspinner (but as he has not replied to my message on his talk page I don't know if this is the case or the deletion was accidental). anthony 警告 14:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A factual note - Anthony is lying when he says this is not a recreation. It most certainly is. I invite any other sysop to look at the deleted content of Shawn Mikula and the deleted content of this usersubpage and to verify this fact. Anthony did recreate an article, and, worse, is lying about it to try to get it undeleted. Snowspinner 14:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the deleted content of both pages and I second Snowspinner's assessment. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Recreation of a deleted page, and use of Wikipedia as a personal web site. Content of User:Anthony_DiPierro/Shawn Mikula was substantially the same as the last several versions of Shawn Mikula. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, was in user namespace. WP:CSD isn't clear on whether this is a speedy criterion, as many/most pages in user space would be deleted if they were in article space. --SPUI (talk) 00:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • CSD is clear that article recreations are speedy candidates, which this was. Snowspinner
      • The content of the newly deleted article was completely different from the content of the previously deleted one. anthony 警告 15:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. An end run around the VfD process. If Anthony wanted to move it to his own fork, he had plenty of time to do so. We spent a great deal of time fighting the vandal who kept recreating this page, we don't need Anthony doing the same thing. RickK 05:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • And the VFDed article hasn't been recreated, unless there's a redirect from Shawn Mikula to User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula. --SPUI (talk) 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It's the content that was deleted - not just the article name. Snowspinner 06:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • The content of the newly deleted article was completely different from the content of the previously deleted one. anthony 警告 15:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Anthony made a recreation of a deleted page after being warned not to, and he did it with information he gained by misleading a sysop and relisting an undelete request for the information in the wrong section repeatedly, again despite warning. Snowspinner 06:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. These constant attempts to undermine proper deletions are tiresome, and should be nipped in the bud. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, list on VfD - WP:CSD says personal User: subpages are only speedy deletions "upon request by their owner." We generally give wide latitude to that space - latitude that is only guaranteed if it can survive a full VfD discussion. I do not like that Anthony and Snowspinner are trolling each other over this, and it is not clear that either side has consensus over that subpage. Speedy deletes are only supposed to be used where there is overwhelming concurrence. Clearly, that is not the case here, so it should go through VfD voting. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • I think you're mistating the policy. I will grant that user subpages are always speedy deletion candidates upon request by their owner. However, article recreations are also always speedy candidates. As this is an article recreation, it is a speedy. Snowspinner 13:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • The policies seem to contradict each other, but in reality they don't. Recreated content is a speedy deletion, but that is further clarified and limited by the specific rules about User: space which say that they are deleted "upon request by their owner." and also in the "wide latitude" generally offered. In very general terms, I would completely expect that anyone who wanted to try and re-create a deleted article in good faith (by fixing the problems which led to its deletion) should be able to work on it under their user space. One admin should not be making the decision to speedy delete that work in progress. VfD offers the only valid way to decide this. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
      • So it's your position that if an article is recreated under a particular subpage that any content which ever appears under that user subpage is automatically a CSD? That clearly contradicts the CSD policy, which says that "Reposted content" is a CSD, not any content which happens to appear on a page which used to be an article recreation. anthony 警告 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it against policy to recreate a deleted page in one's userspace? If so, then I guess I would vote to keep deleted. Also there are several other examples of users doing this. Should they have their user subpages deleted too? In fact, I know of one user who exists just for this purpose. -R. fiend 21:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is against policy: [8], where it falls under "other non-encyclopedic content," as the nature of a deletion vote is to declare something unencyclopedic. Snowspinner 13:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it's in a grey area. (IMHO a fairly dark, brooding, ominous, shade of grey that recalls the night's Plutonian shore). The policy page and common practice support "wide latitude." The critical sentence is "Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." The action on this particular page should stand or fall its perceived relationship to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. If the motive for page creation is perceived to be essentially a good-faith effort to build an encyclopedia, it should be restored. If the motive is essentially to provoke controversy, deletion was proper. If it falls in a grey area, it is perfectly appropriate to apply hysteresis and say "it should not have been deleted, but once deleted should not be restored." That's my opinion on policy. I'm not voting, due to personal involvement. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I should note that until Snowspinner started an edit war trying to get this deleted there was no controversy. This page is clearly related to Wikipedia. anthony 警告 15:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • It is NOT "...clearly related to Wikipedia", except in that Wikipedia decided it wasn't suitable for itself. Anthony is taking the sentence and bending it out of shape to fit here.
            • The old article was deemed not to be suitable for a Wikipedia article. That has no relation to whether or not the page is related to Wikipedia. It clearly is. What is suitable for a Wikipedia article and what is suitable for a user subpage is completely different. Works in progress, like this, are perfectly justifiable in user space. Likewise, commentary on the runnings of Wikipedia itself, while not suitable for articles are most certainly justifiable in article space. In any case, this is a decision which should be made using VfD (and generally a great deal of latitude is given to things in user space). It is not a speedy deletion candidate. anthony 警告 01:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a general rule, is saving articles that lost VfD within User Pages okay? Is there a time limit before users are expected to save it or transfer it somewhere else, or is it unlimited? --Calton 19:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since CSD specifically mentions "moving user pages out of the article space" it seems historically this is perfectly acceptable (as another example I'm fairly sure the content of User:Daniel C. Boyer failed a VFD at some point). If it's excessive then it might be listed on VfD, but this isn't at all excessive. Besides, the article which lost VfD is completely different from the article which was speedily deleted. anthony 警告 01:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Now, could I get a non-self-serving opinion from someone else? --Calton 11:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't any opinion be just as self-serving as mine? anthony 警告 13:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on VFD. I would give wider consideration that it is a user space subpage, rather than the actual Wikipedia. It's not like he has the actual article redirecting to his temporary user space. As this is a gray area, I think it is best for community consensus to decide, rather than one person. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The page's contents were not completely different to those of the deleted Shawn Mikula, but neither were they identical. Sysops can see the last deleted revision of Shawn Mikula here and compare it to the last deleted revision of User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula here. The differences are:
    • The article identified Mikula as a neuroscientist at JHU and claimed that he was known for his work on theoretical and anatomical neuroscience. Anthony's page said that he was a graduate student at JHU who worked on theoretical and anatomical neuroscience.
    • The article said he was founder and chair of the Mind-Brain Society; Anthony's page simply claimed that he was "involved with" that organization.
    • The article had one external link, to mind-brain.com. Anthony's page added several more: one to an Internet Archive backup of the same site, one to an Internet Archive backup of a page for the Mind-Brain society on Brown University's website, and one to www.mb.jhu.edu.
      • The original revision of Anthony's userpage was, in fact, identical to the last deleted revision of Shawn Mikula, without formatting and wikification, but with two extra external links (the aforementioned Internet Archive backups).
        • The original version was not the one which was deleted. anthony 警告 15:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote is to undelete. The content was validly deleted, but as I said back on the admin noticeboard, people preserve deleted content all the time. Why Anthony found this particular page so worthy of preservation, I can't imagine—the fellow is not especially noteworthy or interesting, and the article was dull self-promotion—but if he wants to keep it so badly, I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to do so.
  • I also think we need to clarify policy on what exactly counts as "[r]eposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy". —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I first noticed the Shawn Mikula page when it was vandalized by Neutrality and then protected. If anything is a candidate for speedy deletion, it is that page. anthony 警告 15:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete until policies are clarified. - SimonP 15:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Unless it becomes clear that someone is abusing it, I think it's best to let people do what they want in their user namespace. Giving people lots of lattitude in this area is a good thing, I suggest we interpret the "recreation of content" prohibition to only apply to the main namespace. And Anthony, at some point, are you going to move the subpages over to your own Wiki? --Improv 16:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • From what you say here, it's OK for every advertisement, every vanity page, every essay, etc., to be recreated in the user namespace. I don't think we want to go there. Users are granted pages for the purpose of furthering Wikipedia's goals, not their own. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems to me what he's saying is that this particular page is OK to be recreated in the user namespace. He says that people should be given lots of lattitude in this area, not that anything goes. This particular page is quite small, and I only have a handful of subpages in my user space. If I were hosting 50 or 60 deleted pages it would be completely different. anthony 警告 01:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anthony's claim that the content of the two were "completely different" is clearly false—the differences are trivial. So what was he trying to accomplish with this? I can't tell if this was a valid use of a user subpage until I see an explanation of what the use actually was. Postdlf 20:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The original deleted content was:
      • "Shawn Mikula is a neuroscientist at the Johns Hopkins University, and known for his work on theoretical and anatomical neuroscience. Mikula was also the founder of the Mind-Brain Society; as of Aug 2004, he is the chair of that institution."
    • The newly deleted content was:
    • I'd call this completely different. If you're saying the differences are trivial, I believe you're looking at the wrong versions. anthony 警告 22:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Changing a couple facts and adding a couple links in no way makes it "completely different"; it obviously refers to the same individual and even has the same sentence structure as the original. Certainly nothing has changed that was dispositive or even relevant to the VfD decision. So why did you create it as a user subpage? Please explain so I can determine whether or not it is a valid use. Postdlf 00:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • CSD says nothing about not referring to the same individual. It's not the same content, not even remotely so. The first content was of disputable veracity. The second content is actually verifiable. To say I changed a few facts when the only real match between the two is in the use of the term "theoretical and anatomical neuroscience". If that's such a problem I could rephrase that, but clearly this is a witchhunt for which no solution will be acceptable. anthony 警告 13:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Let me put it to you this way. If I caught your version in a student paper, the student would fail for plagiarism. That is to say, they are essentially identical.Snowspinner 03:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Were this a student paper I wouldn't have copied the term "theoretical and anatomical neuroscience". Other than that, what is the same? The first sentence has the person's name and title, gee, that can be said about just about any person in the encyclopedia. Forget the fact that the title is actually different, I mean, it's still essentially identical. The second sentence isn't even similar, and it's a work in progress so it's subject to change. The links are completely new, and they take up more than half the content. In any case, it's clearly not reposted content. anthony 警告 13:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - bad faith action to circumvent deletion process. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedily deleting this is a bad faith action to circumvent the deletion process. anthony 警告 13:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, though I may change my mind if Anthony provides the slightest bit of justification of his end-run around process: what's so damned important about this article that it must reside on Wikipedia servers, as opposed to his own? --Calton 01:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't feel that I have made an end-run around any process and that I therefore have to justify myself. It resides on Wikipedia's servers because its purpose is to improve Wikipedia, which is more than can be said about most of the pages on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. I suggest you mark them for speedy deletion if you don't want to be a hypocrite. anthony 警告 13:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • ...its purpose is to improve Wikipedia' What the hell is that supposed to mean? If it means adding an article that you consider encyclopedic content under the imprimatur of Wikipedia, one that a majority of voters decided was no such thing, then guess what? It's an end-run around process. Or was there some other meaning you were getting at in your remarkably vague justification? --Calton 19:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • A majority of voters decided that the old article wasn't suitable for a Wikipedia article, not that no article on Mikula ever can be a Wikipedia article. anthony 警告 00:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • It would be ridiculous to assert that the binding effect of a VfD is limited to the exact character-for-character text of an article—depending on the explanations expressed by the voters, recreations of the same subject may be restricted. In this case, the VfD consensus was that Shawn Mikula was vanity, so the result is that any future article on Mikula that likewise failed to show his notability could be speedy deleted. The necessary implication of the VfD judgment was that a nonvanity article on Mikula could not have been written; otherwise it would have simply been fixed rather than deleted. This is a rebuttable presumption, of course, which is why new information coming to light on a subject may be a valid reason for undeletion of an article. However, if anything, your edits have downgraded his notability, by changing him from a neuroscientist to a mere grad student. Do you actually think that if you had posted your version in the article space that it would have been beyond the bounds of the VfD decision? If so, you are clearly alone in that opinion. Postdlf 03:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • It would be ridiculous to assert that the binding effect of a VfD is limited to the exact character-for-character text of an article However, I have asserted no such thing. I think it's ridiculous to assert that just because a VfD on a particular article is made no user subpage can even contain any information about that topic. In this case, the VfD consensus was that Shawn Mikula was vanity A few people said that the article was vanity. so the result is that any future article on Mikula that likewise failed to show his notability could be speedy deleted How can one show his notability if one cannot even create an article in ones own user space to collect information on the person? If this were an article, then maybe you'd have a point, but it isn't. This is just a collection of information which I have added to my user space. The necessary implication of the VfD judgment was that a nonvanity article on Mikula could not have been written; otherwise it would have simply been fixed rather than deleted. That's not at all true. The implication is that those who voted to delete did not personally know of any way that a nonvanity article on Mikula could be written at this time. They couldn't possibly know all the information about the person, and they certainly can't know everything that is ever going to happen involving the person. However, if anything, your edits have downgraded his notability, by changing him from a neuroscientist to a mere grad student. I haven't yet been able to confirm whether or not he's a neuroscientist. I'm still researching the issue though, at least I was before I switched my attention to VfU. Do you actually think that if you had posted your version in the article space that it would have been beyond the bounds of the VfD decision? If I thought that it would have survived VfD I would have posted it in the article space. However, the user space is not the article space. The standards are completely different. Works in progress are kept in the user space all the time. More than one article in the Wikipedia has started in the user space. anthony 警告 12:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Do you think that if you had posted User:Postdlf/todo in the article space that it would have survived a VfD? The user space is not the article space. anthony 警告 12:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • A user to do list has nothing to do with the issue that I was responding to, re: your 00:49, 24 Feb 2005 comment about the scope of the VfD; I was not talking about the general purpose of the user space here—stop ignoring context. You also didn't address my comment about how votes for undeletion is the solution to any lack of knowledge about whether a nonvanity article could be written at the time one is deleted for irredeemible vanity. Or, if VfD isn't binding on subject matter, why articles aren't simply fixed instead of deleted. There are the occasional listings in which the consensus is that it is easier to just start over because of how plain awful the version at issue is, but a vanity judgment is necessarily one that the individual being written about is not notable enough for an article. Otherwise, simply making it NPOV would be the solution to a vain article about a notable subject. Listing here on votes for undeletion is the remedy for when an individual thinks that the original vanity judgment was incorrect, that information wasn't considered/available that the individual is notable enough.
                • A user to do list has nothing to do with the issue that I was responding to, re: your 00:49, 24 Feb 2005 comment about the scope of the VfD. You're acting like VfD is some sort of court order. It isn't. VfD is a persuasion tool more than anything. There is no "binding effect". If a majority of voters say that an article is vanity, that doesn't mean that any article on that person should be deleted. In fact, the very term "vanity" itself means different things to different people. Some people take it to mean "unimportant", and others take it to mean "autobiographical". You also didn't address my comment about how votes for undeletion is the solution to any lack of knowledge about whether a nonvanity article could be written at the time one is deleted for irredeemible vanity. I'm sorry, I don't even understand your question. Or, if VfD isn't binding on subject matter, why articles aren't simply fixed instead of deleted. It's easier to destroy than to create. There are the occasional listings in which the consensus is that it is easier to just start over because of how plain awful the version at issue is, but a vanity judgment is necessarily one that the individual being written about is not notable enough for an article. No, at the most it is a judgement that there is nothing in the article which shows that the person is notable enough for an article. It doesn't mean the person necessarily isn't notable enough for an article (you'd have to do far too much research to determine that), and it certainly doesn't mean that the person never will be notable enough for an article (none of us can ever know that). Otherwise, simply making it NPOV would be the solution to a vain article about a notable subject. That would be the best solution in that case, don't you think? Listing here on votes for undeletion is the remedy for when an individual thinks that the original vanity judgment was incorrect, that information wasn't considered/available that the individual is notable enough. It's also the solution when a page in user space is clearly deleted out of process. anthony 警告 03:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As for the subsequent but separate issue you keep jumping back and forth to, of whether a user subpage can be a repository for material covered by a VfD, it logically follows that unless you can get a judgment on votes for undeletion that an error was made about the article subject's notability in that VfD, that the content can serve no valid purpose on wikipedia. Without that judgment, the article cannot be recreated. If the article cannot be recreated, playing around with its content on a user subpage cannot improve wikipedia and so is outside valid usage. As suggested elsewhere, information from an autobiographical vanity page may fall outside this to some extent, because some information about users within their user space is generally accepted, but that's obviously irrelevant to this case (as are user to do lists). Postdlf 00:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As for the subsequent but separate issue you keep jumping back and forth to, of whether a user subpage can be a repository for material covered by a VfD, it logically follows that unless you can get a judgment on votes for undeletion that an error was made about the article subject's notability in that VfD, that the content can serve no valid purpose on wikipedia. So then BJAODN serves no valid purpose on Wikipedia? If the article cannot be recreated, playing around with its content on a user subpage cannot improve wikipedia and so is outside valid usage. If it were the case that no article on Shawn Mikula may ever be created, and that the only way to improve Wikipedia is by writing articles, then I suppose you'd have a point. Of course, if the only way to improve Wikipedia were by writing articles, we wouldn't have a user space in the first place, and this very discussion we are having right now would be a candidate for speedy deletion. As suggested elsewhere, information from an autobiographical vanity page may fall outside this to some extent, because some information about users within their user space is generally accepted, but that's obviously irrelevant to this case (as are user to do lists). Why are user to-do lists outside the scope but this isn't? Again you are assuming that Shawn Mikula a) is not notable and b) will never become notable. I highly doubt you know enough about Mikula to have come to conclusion a), and I am positive you don't know enough about the future to come to conclusion b). Furthermore, you completely ignore meta information about Wikipedia itself, which is absolutely essential to producing the best encyclopedia. anthony 警告 03:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as anthony has refused to explain what just about everyone else has considered a questionable practice that I can fathom no reason for . I am once again revolted by anthony's approach of slapping everyone in the face with his contrarian attitude and bad faith "arguments". For someone who so frequently argues that consensus must strive to represent everyone, it is remarkable how stubbornly anthony refuses to accommodate the views of anyone to his own or to even explain himself, instead of unilaterally insisting on idiosyncratic, unelaborated interpretations and definitions. It should have been obvious to all but the most willfully blind that the bland statement "its purpose is to improve Wikipedia" would not be taken as anyone by self-evident, because that's the very proposition being disputed here. Anthony has yet again displayed an utter failure to engage in constructive discussion and should be blocked from ever wasting our time again in the Wikipedia namespace. Postdlf 16:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't feel I have any need to explain myself in order for content in my user space to not be deleted. The burden of proof should rest on the person trying to delete this. This is perfectly in line with a strive toward consensus, as the presence of this page isn't hurting anyone and the only purpose of deleting it is to harm me. If we were to have it your way there would be no criteria for speedy deletion, and any admin could delete a page in anyone else's user space for any reason whatsoever, and that user would then have to argue to get the page back. This isn't how things work. We have specific criteria for speedy deletion, and none of these criteria were met. That is the reason this should be undeleted, and that reason alone is sufficient. If you want to make an exception, take it to VfD. As for disputing the purpose of the content, I don't see how anyone other than me can possibly expect to know my reasons for adding the content. It's just not a debatable point. I added the content to improve Wikipedia. anthony 警告 18:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Wouldn't it be the same thing if Anthony simply placed the same content as a subsection of his user page? Consider: He places the content on his own User page, a place only he should be editing, and no one else except in times of spelling errors, grammar errors and/or vandalism... then moves it to a subpage. After all, archiving your discussion to a subpage is valid. Moving content to subpages is also valid. If this content was almost the same thing as having it moved from content of his main User page, shouldn't we just leave it alone? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This could all be avoided trivially by Anthony if he wished. No law of physics says that the only place to develop the text of an article is online within Wikipedia. It is perfectly possible to develop the text offline in a text editor and wait until it is well developed before revealing it to the Wikipedian world. When an article is basically textual, like this one, free from tables or images or math markup, this is very practical. When it is in good shape, a paste into an edit box, a post into user space, a pass or two to make sure all the Wiki markup is correct, and then into the article space. If Anthony's true motives were the preparation of an encyclopedic article on Shawn Mikula, and if he truly believes that a good article on Dr. Mikula will be viewed as encyclopedic by Wikipedians, then, given the controversial nature of the article, this would be the pragmatic thing to do. The fact that he instead chooses to expend great personal energy chewing away with bulldog tenacity at the borders of Wikipedia policy gives me an impression that he enjoys the creation of needless friction. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is possible but it is considerably less useful and convenient. For one thing, no one else could collaborate with me if I did this offline in a text editor. The one who broke Wikipedia policy is David Gerard however, not me. The one who created the friction is Snowspinner. This could all have been avoided if Snowspinner just minded his own business and stayed out of my user space. To suggest that I'm to blame for trying to use Wikipedia to improve Wikipedia is ludicrous. anthony 警告 13:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't suggest you were to blame. You are not solely to blame. "Friction" cannot occur without the involvement of (at least) two surfaces. If a neighbor's dog craps in the middle of the sidewalk, they are to blame. Nevertheless, it is within my power to choose whether a) to walk around it, or b) stomp in it, and confront my neighbor with my stinky shoes. Electing course (b) would be completely within my rights, and might spring from the purest motives of civic improvement, but would have predictable consequences in terms of others' opinion of me. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • You are not solely to blame. I'm not at all to blame. If a neighbor's dog craps in the middle of the sidewalk, they are to blame. How about c) ask my neighbor to clean it up. That's all I'm doing here. Gerard broke Wikipedia policy by speedily deleting that page and I'm just asking someone to right that wrong. anthony 警告 15:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The allegation that the page was deleted "out of process" is untrue. The page is clearly a (slightly modified) re-posting of previously deleted content, and so satisfies test "General 4" of WP:CSD, and so the deletion was permitted in terms of policy. (A page is a candidate for speedy deletion if it satisfies at least one of the criteria. There's no need for it to satisfy more than one criterion, such as both "re-posting of deleted content" and "user sub-page deletion requested by user".) Perhaps we need a policy change to allow deleted content to be re-posted in user space. —AlanBarrett 18:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the problem we really need to address is the question I asked above: Is it acceptable for a user to copy a deleted article into their userspace? The answer I've got so far seems to be along the lines of "kinda", " alittle", "maybe", etc. I think we need to do better than that. Obviously one can move a erroneously created vanity page on oneself into their userspace, we call it "userfying" and it's encouraged. But I'm talking about a page just to preserve information deemed inappropriate for wikipedia, and keeping it in the greater wikipedia domain. Maybe even linking to it from talk pages. If this is allowed, in some form, where is the line drawn? Can someone move every deleted article into their usespace? Can they have sockpuppets do this for them? These questions go beyond anthony and Shawn Mikula. -R. fiend 21:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There's little point in trying to develop algorithms or bright-line definitions. A perfectly good answer to your question is, "it depends." It depends on what deleted article was copied into userspace, why it was copied, and what we judge is likely to happen to it afterwards. We should treat these things case-by-case, we should make individual judgements, we should use VfU to combine our individual judgements into group judgements. How often does this situation—copying deleted articles into userspace—arise? Not very often. We don't need to develop a VfUBot that crawls Wikipedia collating userspace content against deleted articles and auto-deleting any with a greater-than-0.85 correlation metric. If it turns out that we're getting dozens of re-created-in-userspace articles a week and spending a lot of time in VfU talking about them, we can worry about developing policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • A perfectly good answer to your question is, "it depends." It's not a very good answer when it's really an excuse for "everyone else can do it, but not Anthony". anthony 警告 02:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, if it depends, then it shouldn't be handled unilaterally through speedy deletion. Why did snowspinner mark this as a speedy instead of putting it through VfD? Because snowspinner knew that this would have survived VfD. In fact, snowspinner had to repeatedly add the tag which sat with a delete tag for days before finally an admin willing (or careless enough) to delete it came along. anthony 警告 03:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete This appears to be a perfectly good use of Anthony's user space. It isn't contravening any user page policies that I can see. Even were it identical, that is immaterial. The Vfd vote was for taking that article out of the main space. I think everyone is aware that the content guidelines are different for main vs user space, thus Anthony is correct and it should not have been speedied. Also, one of the main uses for user pages is preservation of deleted material.  The Steve  06:49, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted because I want no part in creating a precedent whereby a rightfully-VfDed vanity article can be re-created in user space without a darn good reason. If this information is so dreadfully important that it cannot be hidden from the world, well, there's still plenty of free webhosts out there. But bringing it back to WP against the consensus shown in VfD would be a horrible precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


Moe, Victoria[edit]

Was deleted "out of process".

Actually, if you'd read what was written, It was not the same article that I created, it wasn't a copyvio, just an article with facts on the town. So the first time it was deleted as a copyvio, but the article I ceated was not. Please make sure you don't delete articles without good reason.--Chammy Koala 22:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee. Let's see. The version that got deleted because it was a copyvio (which you posted) began:

Formerly the city of Moe, this Gippsland town was amalgamated together with Morwell and Traralgon in 1995 into the LaTrobe Council. The town is bisected by the Narracan Creek and this area was originally occupied by the Woiwurung poeple. The name Moe is said to be derived from an aboriginal word mouay meaning swamp. After 1850 a small settlment known as Mouay or Westbury grew to service local agriculture including timber, dairying and potatoes. Moe was also a major stopping point for goldfields at Walhalla.

This was deleted via proper process as a copyvio. You then reposted:

Formerly the city of Moe, this Gippsland town was amalgamated together with Morwell and Traralgon in 1995 into the LaTrobe Council. The town is bisected by the Narracan Creek. The name Moe is said to be derived from an aboriginal word "mouay" meaning swamp.

The railway from Melbourne opened in 1910.

Explain to me how the second is not the same as the first, which was a copyvio.

However, the article has been replaced by a non-copyvio version, so this debate is moot. RickK 20:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with RickK. Keep copyvio edit history deleted. Postdlf 06:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the deleted version was just a shortened copyvio. Keep deleted that one along with its edit history, while we keep the current rewrite. Sjakkalle 10:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, keep history (and copyvio) deleted, keep current rewrite. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Hill[edit]

  • keep deleted This article was written about me. I did not post it nor do I know who owns the hillm4 account in question. It was copied from my Web site without my permission so it probably violates copyright. I've had problems in the past with people creating accounts using my name or similar things and doing stuff like this. I hope this article stays deleted as I do not want this type of information in wikipedia, nor do I think it belongs here. Thanks.

Deleted out of process, how is "on a person" criteria for speedy deletion? Sam Spade 14:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 9 May 2005 Filiocht deleted "Michael P. Hill" (content was: '{{db|on a person}}')

Keep deleted Was there any content at all in the original article? If so, it isn't here. No content=not an article, thoroughly sppediable under criterion #1. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep deleted - Below is a sample from the article:
    When not working on his computer, Michael is a die-hard fan of the sitcom "Friends" and "Will and Grace" and enjoys reading mysteries. Michael also enjoys spending time with his yellow Labrador retriever, Casey-Mae.
    Only thing missing is ... enjoys long walks in the moonlight... - Tεxτurε 15:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This article is clear vanity, but vanity isn't a speedy candidate. It takes a VfD to determine that. --Deathphoenix 15:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted. Copyvio + vanity = double whammy. --Deathphoenix 03:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The article was blanked by the anon who put the speedy deletion notice on it. Prior to that, yes, it was vanity, but VfD-able vanity, not speedy deletable. All together, it was about four short paragraphs, all of which related to the (I believe) nonnotable accomplishments of the subject except for the one Texture quoted. Another section reads: In addition, Michael has designed Web sites for his school district, local businesses and organizations. His Web design has won Future Business Leaders of America's first place state award two years in a row and advanced to the organization's national competition. Michael also won a local editorial writing award. I think it's going to get killed on VfD, and rightfully so, but it should go there. Postdlf 17:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I'm not clear that this is vanity, though it's certainly appallingly written, and contains much Hello magazine slop (I looked at SS's "cleaned up" version), but in any case it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. What is going to be served by undeleting, when it's obviously going to go to VfD immediately upon undeletion and will obviously get deleted from there? WP:POINT. RickK 18:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Copyright violation. User:Hillm4 is not Michael P. Hill, but appears to be editing in a way that suggests he is. Hillm4 is the name Michael P. Hill usually uses online, but in this case, this account is not him (according to an email from him in info-en). Angela. 18:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I noticed there was even an edit to Will & Grace in the edit history, and we know Mr. Hill loves that show. Why would someone go to that much trouble to impersonate someone so obscure? Probably safer at any rate just keeping it deleted as a potential if not likely copyvio. Postdlf 23:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. VfD for this crap would just be a waste of time. jni 08:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It would be a waste of time to undelete and run it through VfD, just to delete it again. --Carnildo 22:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owen, South Australia[edit]

Deleted out of process, not candidate for speedy deletion. Sam Spade 14:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 9 May 2005 Jinian deleted "Owen, South Australia" (content was: '{{d}}TravelMate's desription.')
  • Keep Deleted criterion #3 "contents consist only of an external link" applies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Andrew. --Deathphoenix 15:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted criterion #3 "contents consist only of an external link" - Sam? Fishing in the deleted log? Why? It's not like you to bring for undeletion an article that has no basis for undeletion. This is a textbook deletion. - Tεxτurε 15:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, obviously. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. An obvious CSD. jni 08:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pull a homer[edit]

Deleted out of process, not candidate for speedy deletion. Sam Spade 14:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15:34, 9 May 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted "Pull a homer" (content was: 'To succeed despite idiocy.')
  • Keep deleted Criterion #1 "Very short articles with little or no context" applies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is a very short article, but there is context, thus requiring a VfD. A dicdef based on a Simpsons quote means a merge somewhere is appropriate, but it requires a VfD to determine that. --Deathphoenix 15:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted per Mel below. Personally, though I'm a fan of the Simpons, I think this is a bit of useless trivia that I wouldn't bother putting in. --Deathphoenix 17:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Not even long enough to be considered a "very short article". - Tεxτurε 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Deathphoenix seems to be confusing the fact that he knows the context with the article itself including a context. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. What I think is idiotic is to go through the trouble of trying to undelete a four word posting, particularly when those four words were in the damn deletion log summary for all to see. You want this information on Wikipedia? Write at least one complete sentence on it. You happen to know the context? Great, you're a hell of a lot more qualified to write about it than the lazy child that posted it in the first place. What was the point? Postdlf 17:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment above where I changed my vote. I suppose it's my own fault for not clarifying in the first place. --Deathphoenix 17:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lukewarm undelete; I'm not much of a Simpsons fan, but the phrase is familiar to me. Could be turned into an episode article or something like that. Everyking 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be a reason for creating an article (though it still doesn't seem encyclopædic), but not for undeleting this one, which was speedily deleted according to clear Wikipedia criteria. To undelete it implies (as the proposal states) that it wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion, yet it clearly was. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted We have pretty good coverage of significant The Simpsons topics; we don't need substubs of random phrases from various episodes. -- Infrogmation 18:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, but would anyone object if it was replaced with a redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons? Radiant_* 08:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a good idea. Everyking 09:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since consensus to keep deleted seems clear, I've been WP:BOLD and made the redir. Radiant_* 15:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per above reasons. jni 08:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as itself, anyway, although a redirect to the particular Simpsons episode article where the phrase occurs might be ok. It's the one where Homer accidentally saves the plant from exploding. Early on, he imagines himself as a dictionary entry for a boob, and then imagines himself as a dictionary entry for success. However, what we ought not do is repeat the joke: first because it's too short (criterion #1) and second because it's a dictdef (deletion guidelines). Geogre 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Tim Cheung[edit]

Deleted out of process, vanity is not criteria for speedy deletion. Sam Spade 14:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 9 May 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted "Tim Cheung" (content before blanking (by original author) was vanity: 'IntroductionTimothy H.C. Cheung (B.A., M.A., M.Phil (Cantab)), born 14th May, 1981, is a Hong Kong born British scientist, and co-founder of www.sha...')
  • Undelete, immediately list on VfD Hard to tell without seeing the original, but if it's truly vanity then it's safe to VFD it. Keep deleted per Texture below, likely user test. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete (explicit "immediate VfD" mention is probably not necessary because undeleted articles are supposed to be put up for VfD). Vanity isn't a valid speedy deletion candidate, but is certainly appropriate for VfD. --Deathphoenix 15:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted in light of the Texture's user test/blanking information below. --Deathphoenix 17:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Incomplete by original author - Entire text follows:
    Introduction

    Timothy H.C. Cheung (B.A., M.A., M.Phil (Cantab)), born 14th May, 1981, is a Hong Kong born British scientist, and co-founder of www.shagascientist.com.

    Early Life

    Academic Life

    Blanked by original author within 15 minutes of creation. - Tεxτurε 15:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If it was blanked by the original author and was only ever one sentence long...then it can be speedied as a user test. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Postdlf 17:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It meets one criterion in full: "Very short articles with little or no context", and one in large part: "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author" (this one meets the first and last conditions). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


ACL Games[edit]

  • Withdrawn by nominator

CoolguysLimited[edit]

This was speedied three times. It makes a claim to notability, (although I can't really evaluate it) so it should be undeleted and taken to Vfd. The first version said: "Coolguys Limited (CGL) were the very first group to start writing demos on the ZX Spectrum. They soon became known throughout the worlds Spectru...".

See also Talk:CoolguysLimited, where it turns out to be a "vanity page" but that doesn't make it a CSD by itself. Kappa 06:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lacked a majority, kept deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Franglish[edit]

Not sure what made this a speedy candidate. Might be an idiosyncratic definition, but should at least be eyeballed for useful content before deletion. I think this is the full text: "A dialect of high school-learned French spoken primarily in Ontario and the rest of English-speaking Canada. Essentially similar gramatically to the language spoken in France, it is marked by the heavy "English Canadian" accent and poor vocabulary. Although it may be understood with, more or less, minor difficulty by a person living in France, its value as communication with Quebec-French speakers, ironically, is limited." Kappa 06:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lacked a majority, kept deleted, redirected. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:10, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion/deleted&oldid=1168078229"