:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was
Wikipedia:Deletion review
This page is about
articles, not about
people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at
Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼
simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion
Category:Wikipedia maintenance
Content review
Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using
Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the
import feature is completed.
Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See
:Category:User undeletion.
:
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gags in the Naked Gun series
I'm not asking for an undeletion as such, but for the content to be copied over to the three movie articles, under a trivia section perhaps. Many movie articles on wikipedia have trivia sections which cover this sort of thing.
Astrokey44 11:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved this request to the content review section, where I think it belongs. ---
Charles Stewart 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the blurb just up there says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and this feels like working it back in through th back door. -
Splashtalk 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's gross process fetishisation over product -
David Gerard 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- The material was rejected by AfD, but it was
not rejected by the editors/readers of the individual movie articles (who might be able to present compelling justification for its inclusion in a different form). Editors/readers of the list were invited to participate in the AfD discussion (via the notice that appeared on the page), but editors/readers of the individual movie articles were not. Therefore, the decision to exclude this content should be applied to the former, but not to the latter. —
Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to amplify that a deletion decision at AFD explicitly does NOT mean that the information in that article should not be in Wikipedia at all. What it means, at most, is that a
separate article for that information has been considered undesirable. —
Matthew Brown (
T:
C) 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Splash. Re-posting deleted material under a different heading is bad. If there was a consensus to do so people would have voted to merge/redirect. Do not undelete and paste. -
R. fiend 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it. Its just because it has a separate article. At least copy the relevant sections to the talk pages of the movie articles so it can go through the normal process of reverts/additions etc. to determine what should be included
Astrokey44 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any harm in userfying the contents over to
Astrokey44's user page temporarily, so he can pick portions of it to use in other articles, as found suitable. There was no copyright violation or offensive material in the deleted article. As admins, Splash, R. fiend and I have access to that text. I don't see any justification for denying Astrokey44 the opportunity to view a copy of it for his reference. The decision which parts are suitable as trivia for the movie articles is a separate issue, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Owen× ☎ 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if he/she does choose to use any parts of it in another article, you have just made it much more complicated to meet our obligations under GFDL to preserve attribution history. What's done is done but in the future I would prefer that we wait until the discussion is complete before making such moves.
Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- The attribution requirement can be met quite simply: one just links to the userfied page in the edit summary, citing it is a source. No need for fancy admin interventions, even if they result in a nicer reading edit history. ---
Charles Stewart 23:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't done anything yet. What I am proposing is that I undelete the page, move it to
User:Astrokey44/List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and re-delete the resulting redirect in
List of gags in the Naked Gun series. The resulting userfied page would have the full history per GFDL, but
List of gags in the Naked Gun series would stay deleted as per the AfD. Eventually the userfied page would also be deleted, but any admin would be able to trace the full history.
Owen× ☎ 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- That would not likely be a viably transparent route to the history per the GFDL, which does not elevate Wiki admins above everyone else... You'd have to leave the userfied article undeleted. -
Splashtalk 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I see no harm in simply undeleting the history of
List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and leaving the page protected as a redirect to
The Naked Gun. Let's not get bogged down in bureaucracy. —
Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wouldn't it be easier to just post each of the 3 sections on the talk pages of movies
1,
2 and
3? or even easier post them all on the talk page of the first one
Astrokey44 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- To answer Charles above, no, moving the text to a userpage and then linking to the userfied page would not be sufficient. Contribution history must be traceable back to the original contributor, not merely to Astrokey44. The full version would have to remain (as OwenX proposed) but as Splash points out, could not ever be deleted. That would defeat the intent of the AFD decision. To answer Astrokey44, yes, we could post the sections but you'd also have to cut-and-paste the contribution history. Again, that would seem to defeat the intent of the AFD decision.
Rossami (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- While I understand the principle issues raised here, it seems we are making much too big a deal out of this. We've all seen larger works than this 20-line list get a cut-and-paste treatment into BJAODN, without any retention of history visible to non-admins. It wouldn't bother me, and it shouldn't offend any of the voters on the AfD if this article does end up living as a user subpage, if that's what full-transparency GFDL calls for. Fulfilling
Astrokey44's request shouldn't be such a big deal.
Owen× ☎ 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wait a minute, I didnt want it to 'live' as my subpage. Its supposed to go into the articles, not be a user subpage
Astrokey44|talk 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, then to address your
If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it, I say, yes, I, for one, would delete it in a heartbeat. --
Calton |
Talk 05:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- True Astrokey, you didn't ask for userfying, but the edit history of the article needs to be retained per the GFDL. Userfication was given as a suggestion for a place to point to in order comply with the GFDL and give the originators their credit. -
Mgm|
(talk) 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is an excellent idea. The article should not have been deleted in the first place. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 12:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
History only undeletion
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on
Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on
Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the
Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.
This was deleted as unverifiable (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church), but has since been redirected to
Saint Thomas Christians by
Clinkophonist, who isn't very impressed with us 'delete' voters. I would like the history to be replaced, in case there is any useful content and because I'd like to see if there is anything we can learn from this apparent mistake.
Kappa 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
-
Strong Support Very wise request -- I would propose undeletion except that the redirect is to a better name, per Elaine Pagels Beyond Belief at least. Yay for Kappa. Xoloz 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry. For both Kappa and me, this is a case of "non-admin can't see content." You know, I have no desire to join admin ranks, but that one feature is sure handy in these discussions; another thing, I suppose, to add to the list of features for an intermediate permission level, if it ever arises.
- Recommend against. That article was complete, unverified piffle on someone's homebrew website church. Even hidden in the history it would be detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia. Pilatus 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Recommend against. We have got to stop treating verifiability casually. It's supposed to be policy. The AfD looks valid. Nobody's challenged it. Clinkophonist could have cited sources at any time, but chose not to. The article was deleted as unverifiable. Why do we want to resurrect unverifiable material? If part of the article were verifiable and cited sources there'd be some point in it, but it doesn't. There is no resemblance between the article that was deleted and the article on Saint Thomas Christians. The redirect should be deleted unless there's good verifiable evidence that the name Thomasine Church is really used to refer to the Saint Thomas Christians; our article on them does not contain the word Thomasine. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, not unless the verifiability issues are dealt with. Someone being annoyed at having an article deleted doesn't attest to the status of the material. Kappa's original link, [http://www.thomasinechurch.org/content/thomasine_temples.htm] which was good evidence of non-existence clearly has a computer generated image of a church on it! The Google hits still reveal nothing that can be used as verification — watch our for mirrors. Without some basis for restoring unverfied and so-far unverfiable content, it should stay deleted. -Splashtalk 00:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think that the redirect should also be removed, since there is no proof that this is a common term for what it is redirecting to. Whether such a removal is within-scope here or not, I am unsure. RfD is not too great at removing redirects. -Splashtalk 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. Deleting unverifiable articles is a good thing. Nandesuka 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, but keep the redirect as a regular editorial decision unrelated to deletion policy. A history undeletion for the purpose of merging histories is appropriate where the content is merged, but the Saint Thomas Christians article has no similarities with the deleted article, so it isn't appropriate in this case. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do not re-delete - the article does have references now. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are looking at the target of the redirect. THe request is to restore the history behind the redirect rather than to do anything to its target. (And the word "Thomasine" doens't appear in your reference, which is another good reason to keep it deleted.) -Splashtalk 02:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I misunderstood what the discussion was here. Okay, keep deleted any article which is not sourced, has been AFD'd, and which the creator refuses to source. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted the original article had serious verifiability issues, as was fully explored during the AfD debate, and was very likely either vanity (a "church" with perhaps one or two members) or some sort of hoax. I also don't think the redirect is particularly helpful, as it seems to be unrelated to the subject of the original article, though that's a matter for Redirects for deletion I suppose. Keep this deleted, unverifiable information does not help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- If anyone is to be unimpressed, it should be everyone else who is to be unimpressed with Clinkophonist, who owes several editors an apology. See Talk:Thomasine Church. Uncle G 06:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the above. this should be kept safely out of harm's way. Do not restore. Eusebeus 10:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm restoring these items from the history. They refer not to Nasranis, but to a small sect formed by a Catholic-raised chap who calls himself Mar Didymos, based in Pennsylvania. There's absolutely no harm in having the information in the history and it may (or may not) be a good idea to have a few words in the main article to distinguish the Nasranis (who use the term Thomasine Church and claim a direct link, via a convocation in 1918, with the remnants of the Thomasine church in India, from these other fellows sho seem to derive their philosophy from traditional teachings about Thomas. We can't really decide whether or not to do that while the items remain deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Restoring unverifiable material removed by AfD is verging on the unforgivable. Add your mention to the article. Leave unverifiable stuff in the bin. If it is indeed unverifiable, then it has no editorial value. -Splashtalk 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. This action directly defies the strong consensus formed above that this material should not be restored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed the history, leaving the two revisions from 11 Dec that are redirects. You don't just get to restore unverifiable material removed by a legitimate AfD and with a crystal clear discussion here that it not be restored. Inclusionism and deletionism aside, verfiability is non-neogtiable: and un-V material is of no more use in a merge than in a full article. The inclusion of such material is not an editorial decision. The inclusion of a mention of him/them is a different question. -Splashtalk 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorely tempted to make a history undeletion request on John Seigenthaler Sr. too, so everyone can see whether there's anything useful in the deleted portions. Pinocchio 23:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't do it, Pin! Bad-faith, WP:POINT, WP:BEANS... Jiminy Cricket 34:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I just said I was tempted, Jim... Pinocchio 45:67, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tony, we did decide back in October what to do with the article, that is to delete it for lack of verifiability, a core tenet of Wikipedia, as you know. Do assume that others know how to work Google as well as you do, and start respecting consensus. Your political goals are second to the reputation of the encyclopedia. Pilatus 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's complete nonssense. The editing history of nearly every single article on Wikipedia is choc full of unverifiable material. Moreover I see no reason to describe the material that are being unreadonably withheld from undeletion as in any way unverifiable. It's heavily slanted towards representing the claims to the Thomasine Church as fact, but is a fair representation of the claims made on the church's own website, which is owned by an identifiable individual with an address in Pennsylvania. As history undeletions are not withheld without very good reason, I shall undelete again. Please do not delete the material again; the presence of the material in the history of this article does not compromises the integrity of Wikipedia and may be useful to some editors wishing to write on this strain of gnosticism. And do please read the undeletion policy, particularly the section that says "History only" undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page, and don't need to be kept for a full ten days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tony, please stop the wheel war right here. The article has been rejected both by AfD and DRV as unsuitable. If the Seigenthaler hoax has taught us anything it's the need for proper sourcing. Armed with your data from the article's history, feel free to write a new entry on Mar Didymos' church, complete with verifiable sources that prove that it is more than the website of a chap with a funny hairdo in a priestly habit. Pilatus 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- History only undelete - I find this referencing of Sigenthaler to be inappropriate. Nobody has rasied any suggestion that the contents of the history places WP in legal jeopardy. Noone has raised any credible suggestion of harm associated with having the history available. ---
Content is now at User:Snowspinner/Thomasine Church. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment If you haven't noticed the news, the Sigenthaler matter as of now isn't so much about the law as it is about public respect. Traditional media sources, I suspect, are predisposed to be skeptical of WP anyway, and a surprising number of them jumped on the "dangers of WP" bandwagon. As for the status of the legal situation, I freely admit huge doubt. No other source of WP's kind has ever made its "discarded edits" history so extensively available and easily viewable before. IP isn't my bag, but I would not be pleased with a suit on the question of article histories, merely because it is a matter of first impression, and those are scary. Wonder what BD thinks... Xoloz 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Decisions to be reviewed
Moved from User talk:Enochlau
: Don't you think before delete articles, you should notify the one who wrote it first? Don't you think you should delete an article without any discussions? Well, that article is a stub and very low-quality, but you should not make a speedy deletion without notify the writer or make any discussions. Someone added Template:nn-bio tags on it, but the one added the tag who even has no his/her own user page! So you would better undelete that article and if possible and never make speedy deletion like that. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Google "Wang Sichao" | "Sichao Wang" 257 results, "王思潮" 19400 results, so this guy is importance or significance enough.
I know this article is low-quality, but what is Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy? Can an administrator delete an article like that? I doubt if the administrator have read Wikipedia's policy carefully. — Yaohua2000 21:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted looks like a very sold A7 speedy delete as written. Are there any references (to published books or news sources, for example) that might make the article verifiable? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Endorse speedy, allow recreation. The only claim to fame in the article was that he is a Chinese astronomer "that believes UFO is a extra-terrestrial spacecraft visit the Earth." This does not look like a very strong claim to notability, and is thus within the bounds of admin discretion. If the article is recreated then some information on the professional qualifications, with appropriate citations, are needed to explain why anyone would care if the subject thinks UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. In addition, remember that it is the responsibility of the article author, not the deleting admin, to do the research to provide this information. --Allen3 talk 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this was speedily undeleted by the deleting admin and is now on AfD. android79 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Comment: this guy is absolutely notable, but my English is not good enough to write all them out, so if anyone here can help me, that would be fine. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- btw, you can find some additional information at Google Google:"Wang Sichao" Google:"Sichao Wang" Google:"王思潮". — Yaohua2000 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Endorse deleteion loks like a clearcut A7 (nn-bio) speedy to me. i have re-taggd this as a speedy, and so opined in the ongoing AfD. DES (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Another 2/0 delete vote closed as "no consensus" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet forum software. I would have deleted it, but it should have at least been relisted without closing. If there are going to be quorum rules (which isn't an entirely bad idea) there should be some sort of system in place for consistency's sake. As far as I know there is none. -R. fiend 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist the only explicit votes were for a delete. This should have been closed as a delete, or else relisted for greater participation. It is not a non-consensus, IMO. DES (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist per precedent of Mythics (which was just deleted, but the same issue at heart), below. Xoloz 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Relist. I don't think this is as clear a case as Mythics, as the nominator agreed that the article might have merit if the redlinks were re-added, along with short summaries. Shortly after the afd was closed, the redlinks in fact were re-added, though summaries were not; instead, external links were. Nevertheless, the unfulfilled suggestion was not sufficient on its own to justify a no-consensus close; the way to draw more participation on afds is not to ignore and overrule those Wikipedians who do take the time to comment on them. —Cryptic (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist - Tεxτurε 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Enough of these pointless relistings. It's a list of some of the most important and high profile software components on the internet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, if you don't like "pointless relistings" I could go delete it right now. -R. fiend 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since it's a unanimous delete vote, I would endorse that action. Zoe (216.234.130.130 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
- Overturn and relist - Obviously bad grounds for deletion given in AfD (lists have many uses that categories do not, eg. they can show gaps in coverage through red links, and they can provide additional structure and information as this list does). I sympathise with Tony (WP:NOT a bureaucracy and all) but it's risking CSD G4's to have the list around without a non-deleting AfD to protect it. --- Charles Stewart 21:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Quorums on AFD are a very bad idea, because they would only increase its bad atmosphere and general unpleasantness. Radiantadiant 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article as is. AFD made the right call here (perhaps accidentally), all delete votes were predicated on concerns that were actually addressed by superior versions in the history, and have now been fixed. Relist if anyone actually has a reason they'd like it deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Relist Even though admins are given leeway in how they close AFD's normally AFD's with so few votes should just be relisted so that more comment can be gotten. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Endorse close. If there is no real participation, there is no consensus. Admin made proper use of discretion on close. -- JJay 03:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, unanimous AfD for deletion, it is not the closing admin's prerogative to arrogate the deletion process. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist -- if nobody voted to keep the article, then a "no consensus keep" is an inappropriate result. --Metropolitan90 05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Relist per Metropolitan90 and others. You need at least 2 different type of votes before you can call it no concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Look, its obvious, George Bush will declare war on wikipedia if you have a list of forum software on it and you will all be nuked.
Havent you guys got a life ???? So many lines discussing the merits of enslaving some team of people to review to review articles that were deleted merely because they didnt nicely fall in with your POV.... Maybe it was untidy, but that just means you are too lazy to tidy it up. Maybe it was too short, but that just means that you were too lazy to add to it. How can a wikipedia page ever get created if it has to be created perfect ? You are perfectly mad. take a holiday if you delete, re-delete and permanently ban redeleted pages just because its not perfect from the start.
:Unsigned comment by 220.233.107.29. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. Insufficient AfD participation. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Bankable star
-
Before the change to the article on 2005-12-01 20:21 UTC there were 6 editors who said that this should be transwikied and deleted. After that change, 3 of those 6 editors (including the nominator) changed their minds, one further editor (Gurubrahma) clearly didn't read the article (because at the time it had already been expanded in the way that xe said it "could possibly be expanded") and said that it should be deleted because of its potential for vandalism (even though the article had never actually been vandalized at any point during its entire existence, and even though, by that rationale, we should delete George W. Bush), one further editor said that we should delete it because "it is an article about a survey" (like the many other articles about surveys that we have), and one further editor simply echoed the rationale of an editor who had looked at the significantly different article from before the change.
My partisanship with respect to the deletion of this article is up-front, having been expressed unequivocally in the original AFD discussion. ☺ I do not wish to imply any criticism of Johnleemk's closure. My only concern is that there might not have been enough discussion of the article as it stood after it was changed. I therefore only ask Deletion Review to consider whether this article should be sent back to AFD for further discussion and (one hopes) the opinions of more editors. Uncle G 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete if substantial changes were made to the article during the course of the AFD. It is worth obliging a request by an outstanding user to clarify this matter, without speculation as to whether people who wanted to delete the first version would still want to delete the second. Or, feel free to simply upload a new improved version; sources proving that this is a common phrase rather than one used in a single survey may satisfy some of the objections presented in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I was one of those who wanted to delete the first version. I did notice the rewrite; while I wouldn't have commented on the afd if the article was in that state when it was nominated, I didn't think it was of much value, and I made a conscious decision not to alter my comment. The rewrite was a one-sentence dictdef leading into a full article about a specific survey, including that survey's results; at most, that would have belonged at Hollywood Reporter's list of bankable stars or something similar. Uncle G, I have all the respect in the world for you, but your efforts to save the article at this title weren't sufficient.That said, I was also surprised at Gurubrahma's and Hahnchen's comments; my best guess at an explanation is that they didn't realize that the article had been rewritten mid-afd, and thought that the previous voters considered the current version to be a dictdef. Specifically noting on an afd that you rewrote the article isn't tooting your own horn; it helps to stave off such misunderstandings.
(Incidentally, I emphatically disagree with Christopher's assertion that merely showing "bankable star" to be a common phrase would be sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. Blue car is a very common phrase, with 486,000 google hits; nevertheless, it is and should remain a redlink.) —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a stupid misinterpretation of what you meant by idiomatic based on not reading very closely. My point was that while I think this is definitely an encyclopedic concept, this might not be the best name, but then again it's not a bad name. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete/relist per Uncle G, who is conservative in this area. To dispute Cryptic mildly, "blue car" is only a "common phrase" in the strictest denotative sense of that term. "Blue car" occurs often, just like "white cat", but it has no special associations as phrase in itself. Contrast "white cat" with "black cat" if you are unsure what I mean. The latter has extensive associations as a phrase beyond its literal meaning, thanks to superstition. Xoloz 17:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're saying the same thing I am here. :) Black cat has an article not because it's a common phrase, but because it has a meaning independent of the mere words. In contrast, bankable star is in fact used in some dictionaries as a usage example of bankable. [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bankable] —Cryptic (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok... sorry :) I guess I'm just inclined to consider bankable star more of a connotative phrase. Xoloz 18:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse!
-
Recently, someone created a raft of articles all related to various
Flash-based web-game clones themed around
SpongeBob SquarePants. Someone nominated a group of these games all at once under a collective AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants online games. The result of the debate was a clear delete, and the articles were all deleted.
However,
SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! was listed in a
seperate, standalone AfD, where it was kept as "no consensus" with a 6/3 delete/keep ratio. (Insert standard "AfD is not a vote" disclaimers here.)
While I have no issue with
Johnleemk's verdict on this AfD discussion as a stand-alone item (I probably would have ruled likewise in the absence of any other information), the
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! discussion was listed a day prior to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants online games, suggesting that Johnleemk may not have been aware of the discussion at the latter page.
My feeling is that the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants online games should be taken into consideration when deciding the proper fate of
SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse!. Clearly, had
SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! been included in the collective AfD discussion that expunged the remainder of the SpongeBob SquarePants-related online Flash games, it would not be with us today. →
Ξxtreme Unction 13:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, feel free to relist. Your point is extremely uncompelling, since the Collapse! vote got a larger turnout and more discussion than the group nomination. If anything, the previous set should be undeleted given what happened in the Collapse! AFD. Different evidence was presented at this AFD, which leads me to believe that the games aren't entirely the same. The closure was entirely appropriate.
Christopher Parham (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- You have the order reversed. The standalone vote for
SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! was listed a day prior to the listing of the collective vote for all the remaining SpongeBob SquarePants webgames, and was closed a day earlier as well. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that the games are identical to each other. Rather, they are clones of other webgames, with SpongeBob theming being the only difference between the SpongeBob versions and the generic versions. (
SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! being a clone of the more well-known and generic
Collapse!, for example.) →
Ξxtreme Unction 14:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry; I meant "first" and "second" referring to the order you presented them, rather than in which they happened, which is rather irrelevant. I've clarified this point of confusion above. It would be reasonable to merge this article to
Collapse -the game (and also changing that title?).
Christopher Parham (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as Kept/Endorse closure per Mr. Parham. I agree with the above; a debate receiving more extensive individual attention should not be overridden by a related group debate, irrespective of which was first and second. Maybe Collapse got lucky in its listing order, but "them's the breaks" -- feel free to relist in a while, though.
Xoloz 17:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
December 11, 2005
December 9, 2005
See
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Treigloffobia. Per
User:Splash's closing comments,
"I've little choice since the sources cited certainly don't include the word with either spelling (and English sources are better on the English Wikipedia). I hope this is not systemic bias, but, if it is, then either Deletion Review will fix it, or a comprehensive rewrite with good, reliable sources will do.", he seemed to suggest that this should be undeleted, and I agree with him. Whilst I voted delete (actually BJAODN), latter additions to the AFD vote suggested that the page may have had content of worth later on (I didn't look at the article later so don't know). I was just checking through the AFD's and this one stuck out like a sore thumb. Also note that there were only 3 votes: 1 keep and 2 deletes. Surely not enough for a consensus. I'd like it to be relisted to form consensus.
Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment- two things:
- #If I had been an admin and closed this vote, I'd have counted the two anonymous contributors (if they were indeed different) as a single keep vote, since their comments were substantive and evidence-based, which would have resulkted in
no consensus. Splash did a pretty good job closing this, though, given that the AfD didn't get to grips with the issues in a satisfactory way.
- #I'd like to see this article, and I've posted an active cy.wikipedia editor [http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgwrs_Defnyddiwr:Adam7davies] [http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgwrs_Defnyddiwr:Marnanel#Treigloffobia]: can we temporarily undelete this article, please? ---
Charles Stewart 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (copyedit
Charles Stewart 15:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
- The reasoned keepers didn't do the job properly. The sources that were their reasons do not contain the word at all, in much the same way as the fake skin condition debate below. Thus the keep side had close to zero weight behind their case.
WP:V is a non-negotiable standard, and simply linking to a website that doesn't back your claims clearly doesn't meet the standard. Further to that, Uncle G implies he has looked around himself, and found nothing. He's good at AfDs and finding sources so if he couldn't find any, there probably aren't any. There are also zero Google hits. Keep deleted, no case for undeletion. -
Splashtalk 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understood the
post reasoned keepers as saying that the word was inflected, hence what occurs in their link is not the same sequence of letters (eg. in German "gehen" and "geht" are the same word, modulo morphology, and I understand that Welsh morphology is quite tricky). I'd like a Welsh speaker to comment on what the claims in the AfD are plausible or not. ---
Charles Stewart
- The first comment from the first anonymous user merely explained that there is
consonant mutation in
Welsh morphology, and gave some examples. But that wasn't the actual subject of
this article, and thus wasn't a particularly relevant argument.
Uncle G 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I looked to see whether I could find anything out about "Treigloffobia", or about any purported
fear of consonant mutation in
Welsh morphology. I couldn't. There appears to be no such fear. My hypothesis, based upon the comments by the two anonymous users, is that this is a nonce concept that was made up by a teacher of the Welsh language one day to encourage xyr students to be less concerned about making mistakes — in other words: that this is just yet another made-up phobia. But I couldn't even find evidence for that.
Uncle G 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's progress, since it supports the claim that this is a neologism, but I don't think it quite settles the matter. ---
Charles Stewart 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted per Splash's research and the fact that this has absolutely [http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Treigloffobia zero Google hits], I'd say that it's unverifiable for a start. I sincerely hope we're not going to start seeing people try to undelete articles just because the vote count on the AfD is low.
Andrew Lenahan -
Starblind 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Observe that the point I made about morphology shows that 0 google hits is consistent with there being much
documentation of content involving this
concept word on the internet. IMO, we need the input of a fluent Welsh speaker. ---
Charles Stewart 18:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can I just comment on Zordrac's nomination here? It includes the suggestion that, at the time of deletion, I thought it should be undeleted. If I had thought that, I would obviously not have deleted. AfD closure are not made with a gun to the head. I merely indicated that I thought this
could be systemic bias, and that, if it was, there were means of repairing that. In the meantime,
WP:V is more important, and suggesting I should call the University of Wales isn't really something I felt mandated to do... -
Splashtalk 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted Well-reasoned close by perhaps WP's best closer. In the case of close, low vote decisions, a thorough sound admin opinion makes all the difference.
Xoloz 17:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Got speedied and protected while the user was still creating it (so there wasn't even anything there except the first link). Ouch!
It's a pretty distasteful subject, for sure, that's probably why it got deleted, but it's even in the new jersey news, so it's certainly notable, as far as I can tell.
Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unprotect, notable, at least let the guy finish typing before you delete, sheesh. Talk about on the ball! ;-)
Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. The content was not the same as the original speedy, so I don't see that a good reason was given for deletion. I tried to undelete it but apparently I screwed something up, it didn't work the way I wanted it to.
Friday (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- :I believe I got it back the way I wanted it now, after several tries. Apologies for getting in a delete/undelete war with myself- I'll leave a note on my talk page warning me not to do it again.
Friday (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- You have
got to be kidding. This isn't much more than link spamming. Doesn't that user have anything better to do? -
Lucky 6.9 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lucky, don't wheel-war eh? Let the guy actually add some content. Go and secure a promise from him first if you don't trust me. :-)
Kim Bruning 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Kim, I trust you implicitly. All right, let's let it ride. Sigh... -
Lucky 6.9 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks dude. I've also nudged
Gbleem to actually go forth and edit, so let's see if he keeps his promise. :-)
Kim Bruning 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks guys.
Friday (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is the usual "file under don't speedy within the first ten minutes of an article's existence if it's not obvious vandalism," followed by "deletion regards content, not topic."
Phil Sandifer 01:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, this was the "article which contains nothing but an external link and a red link to an article which doesn't exist, making the entire thing look like an attack page, which is validly speedy deleted."
User:Zoe|
(talk) 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
::Who was being attacked? The Danish Pedophile Association or Nambla? They are equally icky in my view. --
Gbleem 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:::The person whose name you included in the article with no other content but a link. Zoe (
216.234.130.130 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
Uh...no. It wasn't. The original speedies were pure, Grade-A link spam. And I wasn't the first to delete it, either. I've defended some
really distasteful articles. This one, frankly, stinks. On ice. However, let's see what becomes of this. -
Lucky 6.9 02:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted.
Ambi 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Moot. Whatever it was (I haven't looked), it's certainly not a speedyable article now. —
Cryptic (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Useful article for some law enforcement official, this may provide a beginning to a successful arrest someday. I'm all for it!
Hamster Sandwich 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Moshzilla is an internet phenonenom, I think that it belongs in wikipedia. please undelete it.
-
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moshzilla. I counted 6 votes to merge or keep and 9 to delete. One of the merge votes (Rtconner's) actually bolded "delete", but merge and delete are not compatible, so it either it should count as a merge as per his his reasoning (see vote below).
:::Merge and delete are compatible. The only reason why "merge and delete" is deprecated because merging histories requires a great deal of work on the part of the closing sysop.
Dpbsmith (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:
Delete Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, has had a small impact on a relatively small amount of people. User:Rtconner]Rtconner
- Undelete and relist, I can see people willing to merge and to delete, but neither has a concensus. -
Mgm|
(talk) 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Endorse closure (keep deleted). It would have been nice if the closing admin had articulated his/her reasoning a bit more clearly. We are left now to reverse-engineer the decision. I count 9 unambiguous "delete" opinions, 3 "straight keeps", 2 "merge and redirect" and 2 "merge and delete".
Rtconner (one of the two "merge and deletes") is a very new user who was actually editing as an anon. While the closing admin has the right to discount that vote, he/she is not obligated to do so. The other "merge and delete" was the nominator. Based on the comments made in each case, I think it was within allowable discretion to count those as "deletes" rather than as "keep as merge". I can see a reasonable interpretation of this decision as 11 "delete" to 5 "keep". Furthermore, I see an unambiguous 13 to 3 decision against keeping it as an independent article. If that was the logic actually used by the closing admin, I think it was within the allowable range of interpretation.
Rossami (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how a vote that starts:
Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, can possibly interpreted as a delete even when they put a bolded delete in front of it. -
Mgm|
(talk) 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per
Rossami Andrew Lenahan -
Starblind 16:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete and relist I'm sorry to have to vote this way when the original nomination is so poor; however, unless an article is particularly thorny and contentious, I dislike "reverse-engineering" the close. Rossami's very good at closing, and his reasoning is appropriate, but the closing admin had an obligation to provide a good explanation in a close case; if he doesn't, I see a flaw in process.
Xoloz 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete and relist per Xoloz. To argue against Rossami's assessment: merging the
Kategorija:Rojeni leta 1601
Ta
kategorija zajema
ljudi, ki so bili rojeni
leta 1601.
Kategorija:Leto 1601
1601
Prague appartements spalacze tuszczu Pozycjonowanie low cost car hire aliasy
