Ulteo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I think that the deletetion of my new article about Ulteo was not justified

Hello - following the deletion of the original Ulteo entry on Wikipedia which was very poor, I wrote a full article to cover this Open Source project, with all the references.

My article was soon deleted for the following reason: "repost of a deleted article".

I'd like to clearly state that my article was not a repost, but a new and documented article about the Ulteo project with links to press reviews in well-known websites. Please do a diff of the two articles to understand what I mean.

Additionally, the Ulteo project has really taken off those past 5 months with the release of 4 different products and that's a very interesting project which has gained real notability, and many dedicated reviews on well-known software news sites such as CNET.com, Slashdot.org, ZDnet and many others.

So please consider undelete my work, because I think that Ulteo really deserves a page in the Wikipedia English version like it does in several other languages.

In short: I'm pretty sure that my article meets all Wikipedia requirements in terms of notability of the project and in term of references.

Getupstandup1 ( talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• As one of three admins who deleted it ( log) I recommend undeleting for broader discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. — Athaenara ✉ 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

More specifically, for comparison:

• April version which was deleted after the first Afd (before an undeletion following a user request to move it to User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo for improvement)
• June version which user Getupandstandup1 argues should be undeleted.

(Added links for admins considering undeletion for 2nd Afd.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at AfD. The most recent version was substantially different from the previously deleted version (by AfD), at least enough to justify overturning the speedy. As it's a different article, the outcome should be determined by consensus. Sher eth 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Exactly: re-determine consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy undelete, based on Athaenara's comment. He She was the most recent admin to delete for content, so I think he she could just reverse himherself. DGG ( talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment The "new" article has the same wording, the same WP:RS issues and the same WP:N issues. There may be an argument that the article is different but that is on the surface. The content of the article is the same. I would completely understand if this was overturned and brought back to AfD. I suspect that the end result will be the same.-- Pmedema ( talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Answer to previous I disagree with the former argument about WP:RS issue: the new version as I read it in the cache provides several links to external sites that are trustworthy or I don't know who you can trust. I can see a distrowatch.com which is one of the most resespected information site on Linux systems, and several reviews from Linux.com, CNET.com, Artstechnica, CRN, sys-con and Slashdot.org which are well established and respected tech-oriented web sites for a long time. They have covered extensively the latest Ulteo releases, and talk about Ulteo features that, yes, are also explained on the Ulteo.com main website. I've checked wikipedia pages of Ulteo in various languages and they confirm at least parts of information provided in the English page that is in cache. So from my point of view, that's really what I call a reliable sources or a big part of Wikipedia should be wiped out too. Regarding the WP:RS supposed issue, I disagree for two reasons: the information newssites that cover Ulteo are not small ones, they are the biggest ones in their category, and at the time of writing Googling shows 600,000 entries for Ulteo. In my opinion, that's not hype, just a project that is catching attention and growing. As a result, my feeling is that the most recent version should be restored. Vautnavette ( talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC). — Vautnavette ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• As per my own inclinations and as per DGG, Shereth, and to some extent Pmedema, I restored the rewritten version of the article and created the 2nd Afd page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination). — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Michael Bormann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Entry was all correct Bonfire34 ( talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I do not know who had deleted the article on Michael Bormann, but I only noticed that it was gone today when I tried to make a link from a band's article that he was in to his own entry. There is nothing in the My Talk for me about it and I had no idea there was a problem that still existed with his entry. I had provided and thought I cleared all the problems that had existed with the entry months ago. Since I had no notification, I had no chance to copy the article as a text (as it was long) just in case this would have happened and I would have asked to reinstate. So why was it deleted and why was I not informed since I was the original author? I would also like to know if it will be reinstated as all the information was provided by Michael Bormann himself, the music groups he belonged to, various web site news articles and the most recent information where he was nominated for several Grammys was directly from his management and the Grammy Acadamy. I think that is pretty much reliable sources.

• The article was deleted under CSD A7 as not asserting the importance of its subject. Regardless, you cannot verify information from the man himself or his management, as that does not satisfy WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. You're free to recreate the article, and given what you've said above I'm sure it will not be speedied again (with reliable sources, you've given more than enough to pass WP:MUSIC). Usually this is a much faster course than having simple speedies overturned, especially when the page in question is not protected from recreation. As for the lack of notification, while it is bad form it is not enough for an overturn of a speedy all on its own. I wish you the best of luck on this. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion as valid. If the nominator is certain a sourced and verifiable article can be written on the subject, they are more than welcome to do so. Sher eth 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion; the article wasn't backed up by reliable sources, just personal information from the subject and management, from the looks of it. I'd suggest rewriting it in userspace and ensuring that it's fully backed up with good references, then ask some admins to review it before reposting it live. Note that the Grammy thing is not necessarily notable - pretty well anyone can submit to the entry lists. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse valid speedy deletion; some citations from reliable sources might convince me that it should be reversed. Stifle ( talk) 10:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• I was going to close this, but noticed that i had tagged and redirected the article in the past. Part of its editorial problems were precisely that most content obviously came from the subject. the article seems to have been deleted when Jaded Heart was deleted per A7 as well, although it lists eight albums. So I'd start from the band's article or contact the deleting admin about it. While you can ask in any case for the content of Michael Bormann to be restored to userspace or e-mailed, it may better to rewrite from scratch based entirely on external sources as the article should be possible and is rather desirable in a form independent of personal information by the subject.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 09:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Inventions in the Islamic world (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The closing admin makes two fundemental errors, 1. he asserts the POV problem is part of the article text and thus not deletable, it is not, it is part of the article name, i.e. the topic of the article, and thus inherent; and 2. he asserts that the Islamic World is a defined geographic location in the same way that the U.S. the country is, which is a patent nonsense; the idea that this is a defined 'country' that supercedes the established wikipedia naming convention of 'things by country' is not supportable, and is a clear violation of NPOV. The admin has failed to give any more detailed reasons for his keep other than these, despite requests, so there is no choice but Drv. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) --> reply

• Closing admin: I am not asserting my own opinion; I believe that I have interpreted the consensus accurately. The arguments for keep were stronger than those for delete. At the very least, it is a "no consensus," but definitely not "delete." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Close accurately reflects the consensus of the AfD. The delete rationales were mostly based on content issues, not deletion ones. Editing and possibly moving the page should take care of all the problems with it. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorswe, at worst this might have been a no-consensus keep, but I have to agree with the closer in his determination of consensus here. There was certainly insufficient will to delete. Sher eth 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. When looking only at the second nomination, you could make an argument that this should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than a straight "keep". When considered in light of the additional comments from the prior AFD, a closure as "keep" is well within normal admin discretion. I can find no interpretation of the discussion that would have closed as a "delete" decision.
  That's not to say that the article must stay in its current form, title or even remain as an independent article. Decisions to modify, move, prune or redirect the page should continue to be worked out on the respective article Talk pages. Disagreements over those decisions should be worked out in accordance with WP:DR (not WP:DRV). Rossami (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Rossami covers well each of the points that I'd have raised (and more cogently than would have I, to be sure). Joe 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse proper closure - the delete comments were all related to the pov of the article, pov is not a reason for deletion. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The neutrality violation is the idea that making a list based on the manufactured correlation of inventions made in the Islamic World is worthy of an article, which ignores current categorisation conventions. Just how do you fix that violation without deleting the article? MickMacNee ( talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Move the page, perhaps? Narrow its inclusion criteria? Perhaps split it into two smaller articles, and there's already a discussion going on about that. I also fail to see what's indiscriminate about this list; it only lists things verifiably invented by Muslims. Granted, reading through there seem to be some subtle jabs at Europe, but I'm pretty sure everything can be taken care of through normal editing. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It doesn't list things invented by Muslims, there is a difference, there are Muslims all over the world. It is as indiscriminate as if you listed all ships constructed in the Muslim world, defineable (ignoring the vague nature and borders of 'Muslim World'), but not a notable intersection. Not one person in this entire debate has attempted to address the POV violating assertion that an invention made in the Muslim world is separable over and above inventions by country/person/defined civilisation (e.g. Roman, Byzantine etc), which is the standard practice on wikipedia. As said above, the closer even makes the incorrect assertion that saying 'Muslim World' is the same as saying the 'United States', a blatant POV violation. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That's probably a flaw in the title and lede, then. Looks like that's what it is listing, anyways. There are ways of fixing these problems other than deleting the article. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• endorse closure -- As others have said there was a strong tradition of real science in the Islamic world when Christian Europe was crippled by superstition. As others have said deletion decisions should be based on whether the topic itself merits coverage, not based upon whether a current version of an article has POV problems. Further, how is it meaningful to call this an "indiscriminate list" when the criteria for inclusion are so plainly stated? Geo Swan ( talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You've just justified the topic itself using an extremely non-neutral statement. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • And List of country and western singers with blue eyes would also have very clear "criteria for inclusion", it would still be an indiscriminate list. And Muslim world is hardly a specific definition either, compared to an actual country (the standard method of listing things in Wikipedia), which again just marches this topic directly into POV-land by default, before you even examine the indiscriminate information it contains. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep, both by looking at the AfD and by looking at the topic. I find Mick's nomination nonsensical. Islamic world is a well-understood term. It is not a well-defined geographic location - so what? Neither is Germany, or the US, for that. Was Tecumseh an "US military leader"? Sam Houston? The current article may suck (although it is not that bad), but the topic is notable and has oodles of sources. Even WP:AGFing, it looks like quite some of the (few) deletes are motivated by anti-islamic prejudice, and not by a neutral evaluation of the topic. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, closer interpreted the debate correctly. This is not a place to further discuss the article or its merits. Stifle ( talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

User talk:SlimVirgin (  | [[Talk:User talk:SlimVirgin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I ask that SlimVirgin's talk page history be undeleted (see deletion log). I want every revision, without exception, restored in such away that non-admins can find it in coherent page histories and in user contribution logs.

I collected evidence to support this request at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/SlimVirgin arbitration evidence/SlimVirgin's talk page. Briefly:

Precedent prohibits active users from deleting their talk pages.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted his talk page history many times, but other administrators undeleted it. User:Animum explained: "please do not delete your own talk page. If you have left, please email me and tell me so." User:The wub explained: "page histories should be kept intact (barring exceptional circumstances) especially if you are still using your admin tools."

Many users questioned the deletion of User talk:SlimVirgin.

1. On June 19, 2007, User:Piperdown questioned the deletion on the Administrators' noticeboard. [1]
2. On July 23, 2007, User:NathanLee asked User:Crum375, the administrator who deleted User talk:SlimVirgin, to undelete it. ElinorD and Crum375 responded. [2]
3. On August 2, 2007, User:Kelly Martin wrote on her blog: "it's likely that my response [to SlimVirgin] is currently a deleted revision which I, being a lowly non-admin peon, am not permitted to see. (This bothers me somewhat.)" [3]
4. On August 10, 2007, User:Night Gyr asked SlimVirgin why her talk page had been deleted. [4] ElinorD replied. One day later, ElinorD undeleted some history, but the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted.
5. On August 12, 2007, User:Derktar wrote on Wikipedia Review: "It still amazes me how much information can be wiped off the face of Wikipedia to the average user or casual observer, and without much fuss to boot. ... my comment on Slim's talk page was removed after due course, having no place in the history of her talk page though the evidence of the run-in is still present." [5]

The reasons for deleting User talk:SlimVirgin are invalid.

The reasons given by SlimVirgin, Crum375 and ElinorD to support the deletion are:

1. Individual revisions contained information that harassed SlimVirgin by trying to expose her real-world identity.
2. In order to remove these revisions, it was necessary to delete the entire page history, then undelete all revisions except for those containing harassment. However, isolating individual revisions to keep deleted requires substantial effort.
3. Undeleting thousands of revisions would disrupt the performance of the website, so all of the revisions stay deleted.

These reasons are not valid because:

1. In June 2007, when Crum375 deleted SlimVirgin's talk page, SlimVirgin's real-world identity was not known. In late July 2007, Daniel Brandt published his opinion regarding SlimVirgin's real-world identity on Wikipedia Review, and his opinion was reported elsewhere. Regardless of whether it is true, the speculation is readily accessible from a Google search for "SlimVirgin," so keeping prior speculation hidden from page history serves no useful purpose.
2. Oversight should have been used to remove individual revisions. On the thread Piperdown started (linked above), User:Cla68 wrote: "I would suggest that anyone, admins or "regular" editors, who desire "outing" or personal attack edits removed from a page in the project ask an oversighter to do it instead of an admin clumsily using the page deletion function. The page deletion function obviously doesn't work well for surgically removing offending edits and it appears that this is what the oversight function was created for."
3. Instead of undeleting thousands of revisions simultaneously to one page, smaller numbers of revisions could be undeleted to separate archive pages if this will improve website performance.

With non-administrators such as Cla68 and myself reviewing SlimVirgin's history of activity for a current arbitration case, the need for a full, open archive acquires an added relevance. However, even if there were no arbitration case, SlimVirgin's talk page archives need to be preserved for public accessibility for the same reason that we preserve the talk page archives of Jeffrey O. Gustafson and all other active users. Yechiel ( Shalom) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support undeletion. The horse is long out of the barn on the "outing" stuff, and the mass deletion conceals possible evidence of use to an ongoing case. *Dan T.* ( talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete for transparency and accountability, especially considering the current ArbCom case. As Shalom says, Oversight should be used for revisions that include harassment, outing and threats – not page deletion. EJF ( talk) 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete All contributions are GFDL, this is not how you deal with privacy/harassment concerns. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, please. There are many thousands of edits to the page, which ElinorD is very kindly in the process of undeleting and moving to individual archives to make them easier to manage. The reason the page was deleted at all was that someone posted some abuse, which was deleted, and then the whole page was undeleted by mistake, which also undeleted a lot of previously deleted posts, something that often happens in error when admins delete and undelete. Some of it was very provocative sexual abuse. Therefore, the whole page was deleted again, at which point ElinorD suggested breaking it into archives to make it easier to handle in future, and that's what she's currently doing. Anyone with a genuine reason to find a post can look at Daniel Brandt's website; I believe he has posted copies of all my archives there. Alternatively, any admin wanting to check posts by individual contributors can look at the deleted edits. SlimVirgin ^{talk| edits} 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - as per above, archives minus abuse is being put together by ElinorD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep deleted I see no compelling reason to undelete if Elinor is going through the ok material. MickMac's comment about the GFDL is in error; nothing in the GFDL requires us to continue to make this content available. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - Per above. Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted Slim's reasoning makes sense. IronDuke 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted for now, please. Shalom is incorrect in saying that the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted. A week ago, I did another big spurt of undeletion, and brought it up to the middle of February 2007. This is a very complicated process, as there are many abusive versions in the history, which is why the admin who deleted the page last summer was afraid to restore the whole thing, since he was unable to work out which versions were harassment free. The restored history is in separate archives and can be seen here. The history is most certainly not being suppressed in order to conceal records of SlimVirgin's "misbehaviour". SlimVirgin was happy and grateful for me to do this: while the idea of restoring bit by bit in separate archives came from me, I did not have to force her or "persuade" her, as I read somewhere. She has on more than one occasion offered to help, or to take over, but it's the kind of job that can be much more easily finished by the person who started, and who knows what they're doing. My recent contributions will show that I have done almost nothing else on Wikipedia recently. I am recovering from surgery and am not, at present, comfortable spending long hours in front of a computer screen. I do not want some admin who is unaware of the need to check individual versions to restore the whole history indiscriminately (as happened before when Crum375 had deleted it); that would completely ruin the careful work I have been doing. (I can quickly judge which versions don't need to be checked; an admin closing this DRV might not be able to.) I restored several thousand versions in the last week, and would appreciate not being pressurized into changing my pace. And by the way, would it not have been courteous to have notified SlimVirgin of this discussion? ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

ElinorD, could you please provide a copy of everything I ever said (ie labeled WAS 4.250; there may be some editing from IP 4.250.* that I label "(WAS 4.250)") at SlimVirgin's user page? She attacked me on the talk page of Animal Testing for being against her so I mentioned that I had said some nice things to her but she insisted that I did not. Place it anywhere you choose; a subpage of my user talk page would be fine with me. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry Elinor, but I have a hard time with this. Certainly I can't pressure you to change your pace if it is something you are not in a position to do; however, as far as I can see, the parts that are missing are from approximately February until August of 2007. Is this not something SV can do herself? I'm not sure I understand the risk of undoing your work when those reversions have already been trasnferred to separate archives. As with WAS, there is at least one post where I pointed out the many articles to which SV had followed me, while she was falsely accusing me of "stalking" her in part of a long series of attacks that she leveled against me from December 2006 through March of 2007. She has recently made this accusation again in attempting to have false and damaging accusations retained in my block log, while my comments to her have remained unavailable. The period from February to August 2007 is also from my knowledge the most relevant in terms of the current arbitration case. It seems to me that if you are unable, some other way of returning this on a schedule should be found. Mackan79 ( talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

To ElinorD: I prepared this DRV request about two weeks ago, but I had second thoughts about posting it because I knew it would cause drama. (You can confirm this by looking at the page history of my draft page, which I linked in the second paragraph of the request above.) I decided to post it on Sunday. When I wrote that you had not performed any administrative actions on that page since last August, I was working with information as of two weeks ago. It did not occur to me to double-check the deletion log before I posted the DRV because the deletion log had not been changed in the last six months. I apologize for that mistake. I notified you and Crum375 and not SlimVirgin because you and Crum375 were the deleting admins, and the rules say the requester of the DRV should notify the deleting admin. Perhaps it should have been obvious that I should notify SlimVirgin also, but I thought one of the two of you would notify her anyway (as indeed occurred). If I was remiss in failing to leave a message for her, I apologize. Regarding the substance of the matter, if you are continuing to restore bits of page history and you expect to finish the job in a couple of weeks, that is an acceptable compromise to me. At the time I drafted the DRV, no action had been taken in several months, the deleting admins had declined a talk-page request for reconsideration, and I was frustrated by my inability to see diffs on SlimVirgin's talk page, such as the one where she called Piperdown a "sockpuppet" and the one where Derktar posted to her talk page something related to BADSITES. The first is definitely relevant to the ArbCom case. The second may not be, but when I saw it I lost patience and said, "Enough is enough. This needs a formal review." So here we've come. Yechiel ( Shalom) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted ElinorD is willing to tediously work through so many revisions to weed out the abusive threats and vandalism, threats to reveal real life identity. It's not at all easy to go through several thousand edits and she is , being familiar with it, best suited to do that instead of a complete restoration by an admin who may not be familiar with it. Yes, it would have been courteous to notify SlimVirgin of this discussion.— Ѕandahl 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allegedly this restoration project has been going for quite some time. I support the notion in principle of keeping nasty revisions deleted, but this page seems material to a current arbcom case. As it stands now, admins can see most of the edits (but not all, some were oversighted, so I don't agree with Shalom about "every" revision) which is not at all optimal, but will have to do I guess, but I would ask ElinorD (who should be commended for taking on a big job) how long she would project it will take to finish if things go about as could be expected? ++ Lar: t/ c 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• There is nothing on my talk page that is relevant to an ArbCom case. That claim is being made by the usual suspects in an effort to stir up more drama. You can look at the deleted revisions yourself, Lar, so why don't you do that instead of insinuating there might be something untoward there? SlimVirgin ^{talk| edits} 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• I insinuated nothing. Oddly, when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin there are no deleted revisions visible to me at all! ... there is no "page history" section there. If I instead go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:Lar, I can see (in "page history") the one deleted revision that I know I deleted, and review it... It is possible that I am lacking in clue here, or alternatively, possible that something odd has happened somewhere, or possible that there just aren't any deleted revisions, nary a one... either there never were, or they've been moved somewhere... I'm not sure which is the case. But I'm also not sure that if they've been moved somewhere that it's quite as easy as you say to validate that there is nothing relevant... since I've introduced evidence that references edits you made to other people's talk pages, perhaps there is relevant material on your talk page as well. Who can say for sure? I don't think that's insinuation, it's just puzzlement. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• From Elinor's project; the deleted revisions are at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. Deleted revisions there are primarily 16 February 2007 to 4 August 2007, with 6 from 4 June 2006. (There were 949 revisions left deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin, which were restored underneath the active talk page on 26 May 2007.) The logs for the temp page show that Elinor did Slim's archives 1-26 in August-September 2007, then did nothing for a long while, and did archives 27-37 on 1 June 2008. Archive 27 begins with 18 April 2006 and archive 37 ends with 16 February 2007. The number of revisions restored and remaining deleted suggest to me that if ElinorD devoted one more work session of similar length to that she did on 1 June 2008 she could probably finish the project. I haven't checked all 37 archive pages, but the ones I sampled had no log activity to indicate that any deletions or moves had occurred once edits reached the archive pages. GRBerry 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for clearing that up, GRBerry. SlimVirgin's answer is thus technically correct in that there is a place to look, but not very helpful since it doesn't say where the place is. I confess I didn't trawl every single place I might have looked trying to find deleted revisions. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. I am willing to allow users a certain amount of extra leeway in terms of deleting/restoring information on their own userpage and talk pages, and if said user wants a part of their history to be effectively "gone", then so be it. If some of that information is pertinent and relevant to an ongoing arbitration case, I could certainly understand the utility of selective restorations of material deemed pertinent to the case. Asking for a wholesale restoration of the entire history is not necessarily called for. Much of the discussion seems moot at this point, as it is clear that ElinorD is already in the process of restoring material as needed. Sher eth 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment - I would not be opposed to elinor finishing her review project if it can be completed in the very near term (soon enough to be reviewed in the current arb com case), if that is not possible, I would rather it all be undeleted into a subpage somwhere for folks to review. This whole deletion thing smacks of simple trying to avoid accountability for less than optimal behavior. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. This is an issue of transparency. SlimVirgin had that page deleted in a bad faith attempt to hide her misdeeds from her critics. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, it is time that all of SlimVirgin's history be exposed to full sunshine, both clean and dirty. No more secrets, no more hiding behind WP:HARASS, it is time to face the music for your actions, SlimVirgin. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• There are no "misdeeds" that I need to "face the music for," and certainly nothing on my talk page that would allow even someone like you to twist into such a thing; and if there is, there are 1,500 or so admins who can read the deleted edits. You're making these claims about me everywhere at the moment, along the lines of "say something often enough and people start to believe it." Please give it a rest. SlimVirgin ^{talk| edits} 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps you might consider placing the "There are no 'misdeeds' that I need to 'face the music for'" comment here [6] in the space reserved just for comments such as that one. Cla68 ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted for now per above. -- Kbdank71 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. If specific diffs are relevant, then maybe they could be restored. However, I consider Dragon695's arguments to be unconvincing. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Let me just point out there is an ongoing arbitration case in which SV accuses a long term editor with 23 featured articles of "harassment of his targets, wikistalking, constant niggling, exaggeration, sarcasm, efforts to humiliate them, and misleading descriptions of their actions." [7] This is said without any evidence, while the most relevant periods of her talk page are deleted, and where as a non-admin he can't access them. I'm not sure this is the venue to resolve this, but if people are going to comment they could please keep this in mind. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted I get the impression that if someone wants to find something in particular that may be needed for the case, there are admins who can find it. Is someone saying that information vitally needed for the case is in there? I haven't heard that. It seems to me SV has reason for not wanting this undeleted all at once. I haven't heard of any reason to undelete which would override that. This situation is different from the preivous cases. And thanks for the work you're doing, ElinorD. Noroton ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It is vitally needed for the case, which was taken primarily to look at Cla68's actions in creating an RfC (and presumably whether this was reasonable or necessary). As far as Brandt's site, it's worth clarifying that it appears only to include posts that were archived, and not those that were immediately blanked, which would be the much more relevant issue. Unfortunately most of this isn't the kind of issue where you can ask for specific examples or expect people to see it on a glance themselves. I agree it shouldn't be undeleted all at once, but there should also be a way to make the six months available with necessary edits excluded before the case is over. Mackan79 ( talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. Completely pointless drama. User page histories are not for trawling. If there are particularly egregious examples of misbehavior, it should be possible to clearly point them out and have them restored individually (but then the question is why they were not acted on at that time). Small stuff will just clog up the ArbCom case further for no good reason - and it already is burdened down to a level that I will be surprised if it comes to any substantial result. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, trawling for drama for no good reason. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The page is not deleted, so this is not the right place for it. Should be on MFD. Stifle ( talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I endorse deletion or oversight of all edits that contain information that constitutes may contribute to an undue invasion of privacy. Because of the high total volume of edits, deletion of the entire talk page is a valid temporary measure. As to whether the bulk of the talk page should be deleted permanently or not, I am neutral. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Pointless drama combined with the usual egregious bad faith and conspiracy-mongering. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Absolutely agree there is the appearance of bad faith and conspiracy mongering, all right. However, we just may have to disagree about who is giving that appearance and who isn't. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oversight what really needs to be deleted, undelete whatever is left. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. Crum375 should have done it immediately after mistakenly deleting the whole thing. The oversight function was created to take care of outing vandalism. Why wasn't it used in this situation? Cla68 ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete Per Cla68. It should be completely undeleted, and any nasty revisions should be oversighted. There's no reason this should be kept deleted. Al Tally ^talk 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - anything necessary for arbitration evidence can be handled via email without violating SlimVirgin's privacy. Besides, I cannot imagine that the probative value of SlimVirgin's talk page from a year ago would be significant. -- B ( talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason the period is significant is that it's the most recent when SV was fully editing, and before the other related disputes took off. Of course this also gets to the main claim regarding SV's editing, that she's continued going after editor after editor where it was not called for, despite reasonable appeals to her to stop. For one example that was just recently replaced, see here for instance is an editor pointing out that SV was mistaken in following me to a page, as noted in point three here. Here is another I still can't access where I pointed out several other similar instances. I do find it a bit absurd that edits like this would be necessary to an ArbCom case, but considering the nature of the many accusations and attacks from SV that Cla68 and others have documented in evidence, it's only realistic to acknowledge that the responses to these are at least as important to the case. Mackan79 ( talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Deleted, but Allow selective restoration. There are enough adminstrators arguing to undelete that it should be trivial for them to go through the archives, and restore revisions which do not contain policy violating information. Admins who restore versions should be aware that they are likley to be abusing their tools of they restore versions that do contain policy violating information. As an additional note, I was the recipient of an off-wiki canvasing message in a public forum, that is likley to be read by a large group of people. I believe the sender of the neutrally worded canvasing message believed the group of people was likley to support undeletion, and note that the sender of the canvasing message has !voted undelete above. I decline to link to the message. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I recently asked Requests for Oversight an edit that alleged SlimVirgin's real life identity. The response from an ex-ArbCom member was that the information is already out there so oversight was not going to happen. This should be borne in mind if recommending the use of oversight; users with the oversight permission have now started to refuse to oversight diffs relating to SlimVirgin. I would suggest allowing ElinorD to continue to undelete the pages selectively, although I think she is working very slowly on this - does she need any help? Neıl 龱 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Has there been any response to this offer? Mackan79 ( talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete. If there's something in there that really does need to be taken care of, let an admin who isn't affiliated with SV deal with it, because the way it has been handled so far is terrible. Everyking ( talk) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete - oversight exists for a purpose. Why do we have someone spending what will be, by their own admission, most likely a MONTH worth of work selectively hand-rebuilding talk page to remove a couple of instances of abuse? Why are they not being restored wholesale and having the appropriate content deleted or oversight as appropriate, if appropriate? Achromatic ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. From what I gathered above the history will eventually undeleted but this takes time to deal with the violations that got it deleted in the first place. I see no actual reason to rush things here. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Derelict (Alien) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Close seems to ignore rationales provided by three respectable editors. Given the respectability of these three editors, the nominator seems to be using too much policy in his or her arguments, which the close also seems to ignore. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as deleting admin; see my conversation with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/May#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). Also, have I read this correctly: I'm being reproached for favouring the application of policy over the opinion of three editors? And the nominator is being reproached for citing that policy and not anticipating that these three editors might disagree with it? That's certainly one of the most ... original DRV requests that I've ever come across.  Sandstein  14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "most original DRV requests..." Well, thank you. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - correctly closed - the consensus is to delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Changed to userfy below. No good reason provided by nom to overturn, and consensus properly read. I'd also like to note that the article can and should be userfied if an editor would like to merge any non- OR parts of it. I also believe that the OR concerns can be removed by finding some sources for things like the origins of the ship; possibilities were suggested by Le Grand Roi in the AfD. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seriously, editors who really think about the difference between guidelines such as wikipedia policy and law such as the U.S. constitution will see the irony and incorrectness in these Endorse rationales. For wikipedia policy itself would not take itself this seriously, especially in light of the strength of the reasons for keep in the original AfD. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I'm still not seeing any good reason to overturn. And while the keep arguements were strong, the delete ones had policy and were also strong. I especially see a consensus that the content doesn't really belong in its own article, hence why I suggest something can be done to merge the non-OR parts of the article; delete, while more tenuous, is still a reasonable closure of the AfD. I'd be happy to allow you do make such a merger if you request it. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Wrongly closed Closed as OR, but only one rather small part of the discussion was OR--the speculation of the origins of the ship. admittedly, that was indeed OR, and is not covered by the permitted use of primary sources for such articles--a rule with which the nominator agreed. We dont delete articles because one part of them are bad, we just edit them. Alternatively, the article can of course be recreated without such content, or, even better, with the speculation sourced as GRC promised to do. He actually does sources such things from time to time. It could equally have been sourced by one of the many fans in the first place; it is time to take a more serious approach to writing this sort of article.
  • I point out that there are two theories about what the closing admin is supposed to do--to simply report the consensus after throwing out the nonsense arguments, and to actually balance the relative merit of the reasonable arguments. Those in favor of supporting deletes here pick whichever one they choose that fits the case. These different bases for closing cannot both be correct. DGG ( talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The article was almost 100% unsourced, and as the nominator and majority of delete opiners realized consisted nearly 100% of original research. GRBerry 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The initiator of this DRV ( Firefly322) and I are having a disagreement over a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination). Given the convenient timing of this DRV concerning a related article which I nominated, I suspect that this may be a form of retaliation. Firefly322 has repeatedly accused me in that AfD of "wiki-lawyering" because my rationales "contain too much policy" and because I seem to hold rather high standards towards articles (though I should note that these are not new articles...the Derelict article had been around for quite some time with multiple maintenance tags before I nominated it; the timeline article is now in its second AfD, neither of which I nominated). He has also claimed that "experienced editors don't waste time with wiki-policy", which I feel is pretty self-explanatory of his motivations. He clearly does not value policies, precedent, or consensus when they do not support his own opinions, and also clearly gives more weight to the opinions of other editors who do agree with his point of view, as the opening of this DRV indicates. People who agree with him are apparently "respectable", while I, with a dissenting opinion, obviously am not. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's neither here nor there. Let's stick to discussing just the AfD, okay? -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Well, since the reason Firefly322 gave in his/her opening statement for initiating this DRV was the "respectability" of 3 editors who opposed deletion, and the AfD nominator (me) "using too much policy in his or her arguments", I thought it pertinent to provide an explanation and rebuttal. As to the article itself, I endorse the deletion per my original arguments that it consisted almost entirely of original research and did not satisfy notability standards. All of its salveagable content was already present in Alien (film) and Aliens (film) with much better referencing and third-party sources. A separate article on the ship itself did not add any encyclopedic content beyond what these articles already had, merely unreferenced speculation and fan fiction. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, closer validly interpreted consensus. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close was fine. Eusebeus ( talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion and restore article per clearly no valid reason for deletion or any consensus to do so either. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Except, as the deleting admin points out, there were several valid reasons for deletion as well as an apparent consensus. Could you be more specific? -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • As indicated in the link on Sandstein's talk page. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
      • This link? In which Sandstein acknowledges that there was sufficient consensus, that the article consisted almost entirely of original research, that sufficient third-party sources don't seem to exist, and that deletion was warranted? I don't see how that supports your arguments at all. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there wasn't consensus, as consensus does not mean a unanimous agreement (you can see that overwhelming consensus here is in support of the closure). Citing your own arguments, which just repeat the same points already made (first pillar, no deadline, etc.), doesn't make those points any more convincing. If I recall correctly (not being able to see the page history anymore) the article was tagged with several maintenance tags for quite some time and nothing was done to improve it until the AfD was initiated, and even then only a few rather weak tertiary sources turned up after the AfD closed. Even though we do not have a deadline, having maintenance tags on an article for several months and still seeing no improvements is, I believe, a sufficient display of good faith and also evidence either that good secondary sources don't exist or that no one was interested in improving the article. If you really feel that strongly about it and believe that you could have fixed the article's sourcing and OR problems, I recommend you do what both Sandstein and Lifebaka have suggested and petition for the article to be moved into your userspace, where you can work on it at your leisure until you feel it can be restored to the article namespace. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Of course the deleting admin will think there was sufficient consensus, but there wasn't. The status of the article is not entirely relevant as potential matters and the article had potential. I don't see how that supports your arguments at all. Just because you disagree with a DRV rationale doesn't mean there isn't sufficient consensus to overturn the closure, as consensus does not mean a unanimous agreement (you can see that there is not even consensus here in support of the closure). You cite no convincing points here to justify keeping the article deleted. Instead of tagging the article, why not help expand and reference it? AfDs last a mere five days, and for something that doesn't have a deadline, we shouldn't arbitrarily force editors to spin into action in a mere five days. I should not be the only one to have to work on the article in userspace; if it's good enough to be worked on in userpsace, we might as well keep it in mainspace where even more editors are likely to come along and help in the process of improving the article, which is after all what we're supposed to be here to do, i.e. build the encyclopedia. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Nothing was arbitrary nor forced. Maintenance tags were placed. They remained in place for several months. Their concerns were not addressed. I believe I was the one who placed them. I would have felt better if I was able to improve the article myself, but I didn't have the source material to do so. The tags offer a notice and invitation for others to improve the article. No one did. Good faith was assumed; no improvements resulted over a reasonable length of time. If the article had potential, no one acted on it. This leads me to conclude that it probably didn't have potential to be improved. The status of the article is entirely relevant, otherwise why would we be debating it at all? Just because you disagree with consensus or with other particular editors doesn't mean that consensus doesn't exist. To say there is no consensus here in support of the closure is an absolute fallacy. 9 editors here have stated their opinion that the AfD was properly closed and that consensus was to delete. Only 3 believe it was improperly closed, and of those 3 you're the only one who's stated that there was no consensus. 9 others here have stated that there was. Consensus does not mean "100% of people agree with it." We may not have deadlines, but we have common sense. And common sense tells me this article had problems that no one seemed interested in fixing, though improvements were asked for and ample time and opportunity were given. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
            • • Instead of placing maintenance tags, why not help improve the article? Instead of expecting others to do things, why not be bold and just do it? "Reasonable length of time" is subjective and arbitrary. To say there is clear consensus here in support of the closure is an absolute fallacy. Consensus is not a vote. Many of those saying "endorse" just simply say "endorse" with one or two word "rationales". The three believeing it was improperly closed offer strong reasons why it should be a no consensus closure. Common sense tells me this article and surmountable problems that editors seemed interested in fixing, but which would have taken more than five days and that because editors asked for additional opportunites, we should give them additional time to do so. There is no valid reason when editors express a willingness to improve an article further to keep it deleted when the article is not hoax, copy vio, or libel. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • (outdent) As I mentioned in my previous comment, I do not have the necessary source material on hand to significantly improve the article. The maintenance tags were a notice and invitation for others to do so (which is the good-faith purpose of maintenance tags to begin with). To the best of my recollection the tags were placed in January. I think 6 and a half months is a "reasonable length of time" by anyone's standards. If the articles' problems were surmountable and editors were interested in fixing them, why did they not do so? You are the only editor in this DRV or in the AfD who has asked expressed a willingness to improve the article or who has asked for additional opportunities to do so; Sandstein and Lifebaka have offered you that opportunity. I have re-read both the AfD and this DRV; there is not a single comment in either that consists of only a vote with a 1- or 2-word rationale. Every editor involved in both discussions has provided strong reasons to support their opinions. There are numerous strong reasons provided in this discussion to endorse the closure. That they may not be as verbose as the arguments to overturn does not mean they are less valid. You seem to be unwilling to consider that the reasons provided by those who do not share your opinion might, in fact, be valid. I do not find that to be a very helpful or collaborative process of discussion. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Valid closure following clearcut consensus of valid arguments. dorftrottel ( talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in this discussion nor do I see any evidence that the opposing voices were ignored. The community read those opinions - and disagreed. No new evidence has yet been presented here which would justify reopening the debate. Furthermore, I must note that I am shocked and a bit dismayed that the discussion here asserts that we could possibly be "using too much policy". The reliance of discussion participants and closers on accepted Wikipedia policy and standards are to be commended, not condemned. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The AfD itself was a no consensus with strong arguments made to keep the article. The community read those opinions and several editors in good standing agreed. No new evidence has yet been presented here which would justify keeping the debate closed. Editors have asked that the article be restored, not because they "like it," but because they believe it can be improved further and would like another attempt to in fact do so. We are here foremost to build the encyclopedia and when editors believe they can improve an article, we should allow them the opportunity to do that beyond a five day AfD. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I haven't really seen anyone offer to work on it. There may be people out there who would, but they haven't made themselves known here. If you'd like to, I'm sure there are many admins who'd be perfectly happy to userfy the old content for you so you can work on it, or for anyone else who asks. I'm equally sure that at least some of the editors who've !voted endorse here would also be happy to help try to improve it. I know at least I would. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I would be willing to work on it. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Great. I'd suggest asking DGG to userfy it for you; he'd be happy to. And, in case I need to, I'll officially change my !vote to usefy. If you need a spot you're welcome to use User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Derelict (Alien) for it. And would you mind dropping a link to it either here or on my talk page? I'd like to see what I can do as well. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Drill 'n bass (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The original delete reason was that only one source was provided: at least one other source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/vb3n/ can be found, and we can tag the article {{ onesource}} 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Drill n bass is an underground fan word describing jungle music released by rephlex and warp records. It's not a genre of music, it's a fancruft word. That source shows that a guy on rephlex records got described as drill n bass in a review. That's cool, but nowt to base an article on. Go to the Bogdan Raczynski page and use the word "drill n bass" in a paragraph to describe him, just like that source did, if you please. For your knowledge, Bogdan Raczynski called one of his albums drum and bass classics, so obviously he is drum and bass, it's just that you are one of those online fans trying to make your fan name famous. It's not that notable a term, it's not officially used by the artists and labels which make the music, and there's not enough material to make an article, that's why it got deleted, sorry Mansour Said ( talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Advice: Try getting the term listed at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page first. Their inclusion criteria are less than ours. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Closure was correct with the only possible reading of consensus. If you'd like to recreate it, I'd suggest first working on it as a subpage of your userpage ( User:Mansour Said/Drill 'n bass or something) then have another DRV when you're finished. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

A redirect to Genie (feral child) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| RfD)

Courtesy blanked

Allegations of Israeli apartheid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Politically motivated, neutrality is a major issue, yet no one has made an effort to clean it up. I remember there being a neutrality headline but it has been deleted..I don't know why. I nominated the article for deletion before using the listed code, but that too was deleted. Its use of Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming, considering his political affiliation. All in all, I don't see any reason why this article should remain. It offers nothing other than just an unnecessary wikipedia-sanctioned political stab at Israel. I appreciate any support! Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Long propaganda page that is very difficult for one person to clean up enough in order to neutralize. Sebwite ( talk) 06:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close this is deletion review not AFD. If you believe the article should be deleted take it to Articles for Deletion. You used the prod deletion template orignally on the article which quite rightly was removed as this has survived AFD before and is definitely not an uncontroversial deletion. Davewild ( talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist: Wrong forum. ➪ HiDrNick! 11:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist at AfD. This is the wrong forum. Unimpressive reason for deletion though. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

List of environmental websites (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Voting mainly occurred prior to clean-up of the page; non-valid reasons

See the page before deletion: List of environmental websites ( AFD). This article was listed at AfD concurrently with list of environmental periodicals ( AfD). They are essentially the same, yet the latter list received all keeps and the former 4 deletes (3 keeps, including creator Wavelength). The first 3 deletes on list of environmental websites happened before the list was annotated. Plus, the reasons were generally vague "unencylopedic" "NOTDIR". This is clearly not a directory -- it has all blue links. It's a list of notable websites. Plus, the whole argument of redundancy contradicts WP:LISTS, which states that "redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic". The nominator has said that he will not oppose its recreation. This entire line of argument (strangely common) that lists are automatically synonymous with directories, and that lists are redundant, is not in line with consensus guidelines. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The nominator appears to be mistaken that this article was nominated concurrently with the AFD for List of environmental periodicals. This page isn't mentioned anywhere in that AFD. There was a separate AFD for this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_environmental_websites. eaolson ( talk) 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • They were listed side-by-side in the AfD list. Concurrent means at basically the same time.
    • There is no mention of any "websites" article in the AfD you linked to. eaolson ( talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. People seem to be not looking at the list as it was when deleted, which is in the first sentence that I posted. Look at it List of environmental websites|here.

• Overturn to keep. The delete !votes use a few faulty and vague reasons (for instance, categories and lists do not preclude each other). The comments made near the bottom of the discussion clearly swing the overall consensus towards keep. I'd also like to point out, however, that the list doesn't define its inclusion criteria very well. I'd suggest fixing this if it is restored. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This article exists only to be a list of websites. That's textbook WP:NOTLINK. WP is not DMOZ, WP is not Yahoo. eaolson ( talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As I noted in the AfD, websites can be, and increasingly will be, more notable than periodicals. So why have a list of periodicals? ImpIn | ( t - c) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I never said they weren't notable. I'm saying that lists of websites are explicitly outside of WP's purview as a matter of policy. If you want to create a list of useful websites, become an editor over at the ODP. eaolson ( talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Note that this 'policy' that you have believe in exists nowhere in the policy guidelines. WP:NOTLINK says we shouldn't have indiscriminate collections; this is obviously an annotated, discriminate list, similar to all the other lists. ImpIn | ( t - c) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
        • From the policy:

Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

This isn't a place to rehash the arguements at the AfD. All we do here is figure out of the close of the AfD reflected the consensus therein. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. No consensus to delete apparent at AfD. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. Categories and Lists co-exist just fine, and improve accessibility. We need more navigation aids, not less. Reasons for deletion not compelling. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Neutral: I see what both sides are saying. Upon viewing it, I felt the category was doing the job just as well as the list. Granted, the way the article is being rewritten would satisfy any accusations of a directory and the like. Don't really have an opinion as the closer, whatever happens happens. Wizardman 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn clearly meets all the requirements for a list in its latest form--the material is limited to those with articles in Wikipedia, and description is added. DGG ( talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not a link farm. An "article" which consists of nothing but links to outside sources is not an encyclopedia article. Deletion was quite right as per policy. A list of bluelinked articles which discuss those websites, and which provide evidence of the notability of those websites, is a different animal. Corvus cornix _talk 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)</S\s> reply
  • This was the latter animal. — Cryptic 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed. This person apparently did not look at the list either. ImpIn | ( t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Not according to what I see in the cache above. This was a list of links to external sites, not a list of Wikipedia articles. Corvus cornix _talk 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You apparently did not look at the list either. The external sites were all directory links; it was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | ( t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know what is going on, but when I looked at the cache before, it was to external links, now it's to articles. I'm confused. I'm stepping out of this discussion. Corvus cornix _talk 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per the title I can fully imagine what kind of POV linkfarm this was before deletion. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You apparently did not look at the list, which is in the first sentence. This was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | ( t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply