List of films depicting the future (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) This page was speedily deleted and when I asked the admin who deleted it for more information his only response was to direct me to post it for review here. Below please find my original argument for the restoration of this article: "Hi, you deleted the page I created "List of films depicting the future," and I had a few questions. I assume based on Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and your brief explanation that my article was a "speedy deletion." The same page provides the guidelines for speedy deletion: "pages that contain nonsense, copyright violations and articles that do not satisfy notability guidelines." The article clearly wasn't nonsense as it had a coherent theme and was scrupulously researched, and no copyrighted material was reproduced in the article. I assume therefore you based the deletion on failure to meet notability requirements. The Wikipedia:Notability page lists the general guideline for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." I would argue that "future noir" and films depicting the future are a major theme in science fiction, which is itself a very notable topic. Additionally, "films depicting the future" fits in nicely with several other similar lists that have been made and maintained on Wikipedia including List of films featuring extraterrestrials, List of films about outer space, List of comedy science fiction films, etc. Movies taking place in the future is as venerable a sub genre as alien movies or space operas and equally notable and deserving of recordation. Given the preceding I fail to see your grounds for speedy deletion.

Your summary did indicate two other arguments, subjective and unmaintainable. I assume that if this article had been deleted in a manner other than "speedy" these arguments would be relevant. In the interest of addressing those claims however I submit the following. One, that there is a clear and objective standard for determining whether a film depicts the future or not; namely, it must be set in a time period either stated to occur in the future (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey is set in 2001, and X-Men is set in "the near future") or must bear the indicia of same. Such indicia include technology far beyond he capabilities of those available when the film was produced (e.g. human-like artificial intelligence, interstellar spaceflight, ubiquitous robotics, etc.). Certainly there is a degree of subjectivity in determining what qualifies as indicia of advanced technology, and if deemed too subjective the list could be culled to include only films with stated settings, but I believe doing so would unnecessarily narrow the scope of applicable films. Movies like Star Wars for example which is stated to be set "a long time ago" would needlessly be excluded when it is among the hallmarks of what a film about the future is and has shaped the idea of what the future will look like for millions.

Your second summary statement of unmaintainable is unclear to me and I would welcome the opportunity to respond to it if you would provide further information. In sum this is an article I put a lot of thought into and believe is a good addition to Wikipedia and is within all relevant guidelines. Thank you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth ( talk • contribs)

• This seems like it would be a notable topic. I also can't really see how this would be indiscriminate. I have a few suggestions:

1. Check to see if there are any existing wikipedia pages that cover the subject you are looking for. I would look at WikiProject Films, WikiProject Science Fiction and WikiProject Lists. There is a possibility that your work might have been duplicating work elsewhere. That isn't strictly a cause for deletion but it is a sign that perhaps you might be better off putting effort into improving that other article.
2. Ask any admin (or the deleting admin) to "userify" this article, or place a copy of it in your userpage. This will allow other editors (who aren't admins) to review the deletion) and it will also allow you to improve your article without worrying about meeting Wikipedia article standards.
3. Consider thinking up a narrower title and concept for the list. While I don't see this as too indiscriminate, some other editors might note that a list of films about the future could be close to what wikipedia is not. We aren't a directory of different links and concepts without limit. I can't tell if your article runs afoul of this core community policy, but it may.
4. How many sources did you cite in your article? Did you use reliable sources that covered the material in the article? While the speedy deletion criteria for articles doesn't include mention of sourcing (the only two that your article could have been deleted under are "no context" and "no notability asserted"), it is required to have consistent and germane sources cited in articles.

• I hope that helps you solve your problem. Protonk ( talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn There is no way at all that "subjective" and "unmaintenable" are speedy deletion criteria. Nor should they be. These are precisely the sorts of subjective issues that should be handled by an AfD. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD per JoshuaZ. The speedy deletion was undeniably bad. JuJube ( talk) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Uphold Deletion Though I think WP:NOTDIRECTORY might have been a better reason. Or should we have List of films depicting 1968 as well. maxsch ( talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  I hope you don't ever fall into a mound of WP:BEANS. Stifle ( talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at AfD. While I share maxsch's concerns this wasn't even close to matching a WP:CSD criterion and should be subject to a discussion to establish a consenus (rather than just an opinion) to delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn not a speedy. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion and send to AFD. No speedy deletion criterion applies; although I would personally recommend deletion of this article, I think an AFD would be in order to (hopefully) put this to bed. Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Looks like a suitable navigation aid. We need more of this. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to directories of stuff outside wikipedia, not to directories serving as navigation aids to existing articles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

There is also the fact that WP:CSD lists Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. as a noncriteria for speedy deletion meaning failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not a vaild rational for speedy deletion in the first place. -- 76.66.181.133 ( talk) 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Sarre86.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| | article)

File:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| | article)

Image deleted without being nominated for deletion, no IfD debate was possible Mjroots ( talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: Two DRVs of two identical cases refactored into one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Reaffirm own deletion. These two cases were secondary additions to a regular nomination and were discussed together with the original candidate in a regular fashion. All participants in the IfD agreed that they all three represented the same case. It was clear that all arguments pertaining to the one automatically pertained to the others. This was therefore a regular, process-conformant IfD closure of all three images together. – As for the substance of the matter, the nominator convincingly argued that all three images were part of a quasi-encyclopedic (private) website about windmills, with which our coverage would stand in direct competition. The owner of that website may well have a commercial interest in his photographs. (If he hasn't, and is just a private enthusiast, why isn't anybody asking him for a free license?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• As Fut.Perf said, these images were discussed together with Image:Chislet mill.jpg in its nomination, since they were exactly the same case. Indeed, I didn't explicitly notified the uploader, since he was aware of (and active at) the original nomination where these images were listed. I believe it would be too much bureaucracy too undelete these images now, just to have them "properly" nominated at IFD and ultimately deleted. If we're really to be so draconian in following the process, why didn't the uploaded discussed the issue with Fut.Perf before posting to DRV ( and to an RFC)? That's a waste of everyone's time. -- Damiens.rf 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason I listed these is because I didn't realise that any number of images could be added to one IfD nomination and then deleted (can this really be done?). I posted the item to the talk page of the RFC because it is similar to behaviour raised at the RFC. Mjroots ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, group IfDs happen, just like group AfDs. Since "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", how to deal with such cases is more or less a matter of common sense and not strictly regulated. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of them being at stake together with the other one, but I think Damiens' intention of nominating them was fairly clear. It would of course have been clearer if they had been listed more formally at the top too. But in any case, on the merits of the case, you have to agree that they all fall under the same arguments, so if the closure was that one of them had to go, it's only logical that the others must go to, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(copied from the IfD on the Chislet photo)

What Damiens.rf said about them was "The images Image:Sarre86.jpg and Image:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg are almost the same case, unless the mills still exist, but completely modified."

Which I interpreted to mean "The images Image:Sarre86.jpg and Image:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg are almost the same case, unless the mills still exist, but completely modified.

In this case, the mills do still exist, but have both been completely modified, which is why the photos were used - to show how bad the mills were before restoration. Mjroots ( talk) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but could you have made a case that the reasons for keeping those two were stronger than those for keeping the first? If anything, they'd be in an even weaker position. (By the way, I have the feeling now that Damiens didn't express himself very well at one point. He seems to have meant not unless, but except that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I was not that wrong! -- Damiens.rf 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 08:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well, obviously he felt relations with me were past the stage of normal diplomatic relations and AGF. He did post a notice at my RfC describing the deletion as an obvious case of "gross abuse of privilege", and speculating I was again committing that grave sin of combing through his upload logs. (I wasn't, I was just processing the IfD page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • In reply to Stifle, Perhaps I should have asked FutPerf for a review before I posted here. At the time there had been a ANI raised and a RFC was ongoing. I've learnt from the IfD processes and the RFC too, for further comments see the talk page of the RFC. Mjroots ( talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for coming back to reply. Endorse deletion, see NFCC 1, 2, and 8. Stifle ( talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Two problems. #1 I'm not an IfD guy, but I'm seeing a single argument for deletion (by nom) and one to keep. The nom's argument seems to be that the image is valuable and thus doesn't meet our fair use rules. Again, not a IfD person, but I'm unclear where that argument is coming from. The image clearly illustrates something that no new picture could manage (mill has changed) which to me would indicate we should have it. #2 It wasn't plain from the IfD that all three images were up for deletion. Maybe that's a standard way to bundle images in IfD, but I don't think such a thing would stand in an AfD or MfD. Hobit ( talk) 09:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NFCC. It's a list of 10 criteria, all of which must independently be met. The argument was that it failed NFCC2. Once it fails any one of them, the others are moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks. I strongly suspect the site is more done out of love than commercial concerns. I've contacted the owner of the website to ask his opinion. Hobit ( talk) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - concerns about respect for commercial opportunities. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Talk:1906 (film) ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD) article was recreated —scarecroe ( talk) 15:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Just a note, but there was an AfD for the article here. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Article has been re-deleted per CSD G4, it was a recreation of the article deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 (film) which did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

VPILF (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) Redirection of VPILF to Sarah Palin was deleted because it was unsourced and had possible negative BLP issues.

I agree that there should not be a page titled VPILF for these reasons, which is why I created the redirect in the first place. Better that people be redirected to a non-POV page searching for VPILF than stonewalling them because of such issues.

I understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for original research, and can find plenty of reasonable sources from many different parties referring to Palin as a VPILF. Just google the term and you'll find all the hits from the front page refer to her and her alone. People are using this term and some getting interested in politics for the first time because of it.

However offensive it may be, the term is notable. While inclusion in the Palin article may be a bit much, I feel my redirect was a reasonable compromise. Wikipedia does not censor itself, and it contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive or pornographic. Some may find the term offensive, but people will be searching for it, and they deserve to be taken to the right place.

Therefore I request the decision be reversed, or at least backed up in further detail in this discussion. Thanks. Buttle ( talk) 11:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• If this is the same type of abbreviation as MILF, endorse deletion as coarse, offensive, and unsuitable. Stifle ( talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:REDIRECT#DELETE, criterion #3. Not a likely search term either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion When we have sources it will be an article in its own right, not a redirect to a BLP. MBisanz ^talk 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion May need to be salted if recreated. Glass Cobra 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for the simplest of reasons. She's not a VP, therefore inappropriate re-direct. TravellingCari 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion I was trying to understand what this stood for after Stifle's remark and failing. Travelling made it clear thank you. Amusing but unencyclopedic. Maybe if we still had BJODN? JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Carpent tua poma nepotes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) Please undelete so that the article can be corrected rather than blown away. Please note that this comment was originally from User:Petercorless but the formatting was not correct so I tried to fix. Please direct questions/inquiries to him.

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to point out how deletion process was not followed correctly, or in exceptional cases to advance new information that was not available during the deletion discussion. It is not a place to try and get a different opinion. Stifle ( talk) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• userfy Why not stick this in Userspace for Petercolorless so he can work on it there? JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userfy and allow recreation if better sourced. It's a "meme", and certainly a more notable one than a lot of the ones we're treating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userfied - I've restored the article, and moved it to User:Petercorless/Carpent tua poma nepotes.-- PhilKnight ( talk) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Newscred (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) Initial article was created before official Public Launch of the company's product. Site should now meet notability criteria based on coverage in notable, mainstream press (BBC, Reuters, BusinessWeek) and widespread user acceptance by mainstream news readers. Also, traffic of the site competes with other similar companies with Wikipedia pages such as Topix and Mixx and Daylife. However, understand that traffic itself is not a notability criterion, but am sure BBC and two articles in Reuters should justify a review. Will improve the article with links and references to these press articles once restored. Shafqatislam ( talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• The article NewsCred has never existed. Can you please provide the exact article title? Stifle ( talk) 11:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  And while you're at it, you might link those articles you're referring to here so that we can check them out. Stifle ( talk) 11:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, the article names are case-sensitive, which I forgot. The article is Newscred. Here are some links that will help establish its notability: BBC Reuters BusinessWeek WashingtonPost

I've only included notable mainstream press coverage, but it has also been covered on the biggest Technology blogs such as TechCrunch multiple times. For the purposes of full disclosure, I am involved with NewsCred and have read the guidelines regarding conflict of interest. As such, if the article is restored, I will let those familiar with Newscred, our users, and the general community do the improvements to the article, including citations.

• Hem, I'm all for having an article about NewsCred, but I'd prefer to see a userspace version here before putting anything back into mainspace. The sources you've provided look relatively good, but I haven't read them closely enough to tell what actually can be written using them. Drop me a line if a userspace version gets up, and I'll take a look at it. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userfied - I've restored the article, and moved it to User:Shafqatislam/Newscred.-- PhilKnight ( talk) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply