Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fvw (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 3 October 2005 (→[[FL programming language]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header 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.

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.

  • Ah, folks... not sure where to list this. WolfgangMozart is listed as one of WP's oldest edits in the History of Wikipedia. When clicked on, it appears to have been speedied on 31 August 2005. Is it recoverable? Seems a shame to lose it. Can it be marked or protected so it won't be speedied again? Xoloz 11:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is recoverable, yes. Its final incarnation was a simple redirect to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It was originally intended, I presume as a CamelCase redirect before the invention of square brackets. I don't honestly know what to do: it's certainly unnecessary given the square brackets, but I think a debate at RfD concluded we would hold onto them for reasons of not breaking old links in other websites and things. -Splashtalk 12:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restored. This was not a speedy-deletion candidate. The fact that a redirect may no longer be necessary is not a reason to delete it. Redirects are cheap and as Splash said above, they serve multiple purposes. Rossami (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Votes for undeletion

Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal.

October 3

Lionel Hall

previous AfD I nominated that page for deletion a while back but a bit after I nominated a few other Harvard dorms.Those Harvard dorms was merged to List of Harvard dormitories but this one didn't cause that one was a few days late. I want to undelete this and Merge into that list. --JAranda | yeah 03:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the undelete, but I'll let you do the merge. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Built for Comfort

1 - It only takes account of member's visits

2 - Only works on IE

3 - Only works in america Let this article got deleted, allowing crappy "Elton John is dead" articles to pop up which are fake. Let there be love dudes. Dave - MrDaveS 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Freely

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for it.. but Speak Freely, the VOIP application, used to have an article and now it's deleted. I don't know what the contents of the deletions are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:29, October 2, 2005 (talk • contribs) 24.196.90.128

The only content "ok", which you can see from the deletion summary at Special:Undelete/Speak_Freely. Angela. 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FL programming language

Undelete I nominated it for copyright infringement of a section some time ago, and the whole thing was deleted. It seems (based on some talk on a re-created Talk:FL programming language) that it might've actually been wrongly deleted, and that even my original nomination was over-zealous. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • All revisions of the article, save for the very first, were substantially infringing on the source, even though it only used a small amount of a 40 page paper. There is something, as the talk page observes, about mathematics having copyright exceptions to some extent (although this was not mathematics), but this article also copied the text that went with the source-code example almost verbatim. The lead of the article, a few sentences long, does not appear to be infringing, however from what is currently available on Google. If you like, I can restore that first revision, but it's a two sentence stub and you'd be better of just writing your own since it appears you know more than two sentences about the topic. -Splashtalk 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks. If the situation's really that bad that's probably not much point in salvaging it, but you probably exaggerate when you say I know more than two sentences about the topic :) Still, I (at least) won't have time for a while to do anything (or so I keep telling myself...) and a stub might be better than nothing... —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete first revision only. If it is usable, then the it should be listed in the page history for the GFDL. Titoxd 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the version as of July 6, 2005. I disagree with the assertion that this is "substantially infringing on [section 2.1 of] the source". For example, the material fits well within fair use guidelines such as are described at [1]. The source material is made available for free, it is factual in nature, it follows logically from the design of the FL language itself, and is nothing more than a survey of some features of lambda calculus and the FL language. If there were some creative work in question here, that would be different. But it's talking about adding numbers, and about the way some programming languages determine which values should be added together. If this is a derived work of anything it's a derived work of those programming languages -- there's very little here which is the original work of the author of that postscript document. The work in question seems a valid case of fair use for every major point of fair use law -- the material is being used in an educational and non-profit context, the original work was released as an educational and non-profit work, only a tiny slice of the work is excerpted, and this use is not damaging the sales of that postscript document in any way, shape or form. RaulMiller 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be confusing fair use and not copyrightable. Even if the content in question was fair use, that doesn't allow us to GFDL it, so it would still be a copyvio. --fvw* 21:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't sue someone else for using the material, but we can certainly release it under the GFDL. Fair use would be meaningless if it prevented the use of the material in the context of copyrighted material. If what you say were true, you'd never see quotes in textbooks. Maybe you're thinking about re-release under terms other than the GFDL? RaulMiller 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear here, I'm making several assertions: I'm asserting that the essence of the material in common between this article and the other document is mathematical in character. I'm asserting that most of the structure of this material is based on lambda calculus and on the FL language itself -- that it's not unique to Aiken. Finally, I'm asserting that for any creative content that doesn't fall into those categories, it would have to fall under fair use. The best argument I can see opposed to this is that the GFDL'd material might be used in some kind of "non-educational" or "for-profit" context. As this kind of re-release could not substantially alter the rest of the picture I don't see how that could make a difference for this article. RaulMiller 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It depends. Some quotes are sufficiently short that they can not be copyrighted (mostly oneliners). If a textbook uses larger quotes, the quotes themselves cannot be relicenced. --fvw* 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're talking about literature, sure. If you're talking about a factual description of something, it's expected that the facts represented by each text book are the same. And when describing a process or a transform, it's often the case that the same descriptive words are used in the same order. If you're talking about an abstract or summary, it's usually reproduced verbatim and may consist several paragraphs (the smallest abstracts tend to be at least a paragraph long). And so on... That said, there is infringement here, simply using different words to describe what's going on would not resolve the issue. A is a derivative work of B if creative content from A appears in B -- more specifically, something that could (at least in principle) hurt the sales of or market for B. Given that, what creative content remains that Aiken might object about? Has he got a copyright on lambda calculus? On addition and multiplication? On the design of the FL language? What is this creative content that is being "substantially infringed"? How could Aiken possibly object to this wikipedia entry? RaulMiller 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're confusing two entirely separate things here. If something isn't copyrightable, it can't be fair use. Fair use only applies to copyrighted works. Once enough creativity has gone into something to allow it to be copyrightable (and that's not much), the complexity or creativity are entirely irrelevant to any further discussions of fair use. And fair use content cannot be relicenced under the GFDL (without the copyright owner's permission, at which point it would cease to be fair use content). --fvw* 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

Wordforge

  • Undelete I was refered to this page by Academic Challenger, where it was suggested I go to get my wiki undeleted. First of all, ignore my last version, readded a very quick version when my wiki was deleted in the hope that it would go back without a fuss. Unfortunately it was noticed and redeleted. Regarding the previous histories, that's what it should look like, a review and history of my website, which whilst I admit requires further wikifing, is a good entry and shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. Not many internal links still, only Trekbbs and Internet_trolls, but I feel it should stay. Oh benevolent admins, please undelete my wiki :) Borgs8472 22:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid VfD and no arguments for undeletion given. --fvw* 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I would like to know the reason it was deleted in the first place so I can argue against them! Borgs8472 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordforge. It was dismissed as non-notable. And it was re-deleted according to CSD G4, a recreation of previously deleted content. Seems like a proper deletion. Keep deleted. Titoxd 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That deletion log refered to an even older July version. I'm refering to a august/september version that was deleted without a reason being given. It was very much expanded from the deleted version in question Borgs8472 01:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Admins, was the content of the newer version substantially similar to the older version? Because if it was, then we can all agree that CSD G4 definitely applies here. Titoxd 02:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Definately, not. As I said, I began to recreate the wiki, but it was far, far less and even less wikified than the version before Borgs8472 02:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not what I asked. If the text was substantially similar, the AfD applies. I wish I had the admin bit so I could check myself... Titoxd 02:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The edit and deletion history shows that the deleted version was recreated almost exactly as-is. The article was then edited over time, adding a logo, improving the formatting and expanding some of the content. None of the changes made to the article address the fundamental conclusion of the first AFD discussion - that the website is not yet sufficiently notable to have earned a place in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There is no evidence apparent to me that the circumstances have changed. This article has so far been deleted 6 times - the original and 5 times speedy-deleted as re-created content. The re-creation of the article has been primarily carried out by one logged-in user and several anon IPs (which could all be the same person). Given the history, I've created this as a protected {{deletedpage}} pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Could be "userfied," i.e. Borgs8472, you could certainly put this on your own user page and if you say this is what you would like to do, I or any other sysop would be glad to recover the deleted text and put it on your user page for you. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the your VfU application, the original AfD appears to have been in order. As to whether CSD G4 was correctly applied to the recreation, that's a question only administrators may answer. Dpb, Splash?—encephalon 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) NB. Tito, strong hint noted. :)—encephalon 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Insofar as it describes the same bulletin board which hasn't apparently changed in the time between the two principal versions, it is substantially indentical in the information it imparts. The later creation imparts a longer list of the discussion boards and has a few sentences of intro rather than 2. It also includes what I presume is the board's logo. Insofar as the word-by-word text itself, no, they are not substantially identical. Since the AfD debate concerns itself with the subject rather than the precise text (we all know AfD is not cleanup (or hosedown, as once memorably phrased)), I would suggest that this is substantially identical and the redeletion per CSD G4 was fine. -Splashtalk 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD and per my immediately preceding comment. The nominator asks very nicely, but unfortunately you need to have a good reason for overturning the previous debate, or significant new information which might mean we need a new debate. Neither option has been provided here. -Splashtalk 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Splash and Rossami's attestations regarding the speedily deleted content.—encephalon 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid process, nn website. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note some of the new reasons I listed earlier now, I hope it will increase it's notability on your eyes. Not everything I mentioned there was on the last best version, I'm of course fine with putting in everything of interest to place the site in a more encycopedic context Borgs8472 12:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't try to re-create the article, Borgs8472. In particular, please don't abuse my trust in emailing you the old text. Trust me, bulldog tenacity, putting your best foot forward, etc. are not going to do it. The article is just going to get speedied as a re-creation of content previously voted for deletion. Don't try to re-create it under a slightly different name, either ("Wordforge Board" or anything like that). Put it on your personal user page (and incidentally Google indexes user pages, so people will be able to find it there just as easily as if it were in the main namespace). Try again in a year if your board has become obviously notable, e.g. has been written up in Wired or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, the page has been locked, I can't recreate it even if I wanted to. I'm not interested in the text you gave me, I can recreate that with copy-pastes in 5-10 minutes. I would however like the version before which had extended comments on the fora and a little history. I'm annoyed that nearly everyone commenting in this thread has been refering to the last history entry, which I hastily readded, rather than the extended one. I did make it explict in my first entry here that that was what I was refering to, yet I'm being judged on different entry that I don't even want! Borgs8472 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summery of Innacuracies in these votes Before anyone else counts up the votes and decides to jump on the bandwagon of declaring my entry suitable for deletion, I'd like to list all my counter arguments that have not been followed up on:
    • "This article has so far been deleted 6 times" - only 3 times, the last time of which didn't really count
    • "the original and 5 times speedy-deleted as re-created content. The re-creation of the article has been primarily carried out by one logged-in user and several anon IPs (which could all be the same person)" - It has been deleted on three occasions and the anon IPs were my message board users, of which I have lots
    • "Probably not, unless you become the GNAA" - Wordforge is quite infamous in certain circles, I would interested to know what criteria the GNAA fulfils to make it notable.
    • "The entry you want was properly deleted through an AFD nomination" - this is not true as I never saw any discussion about the second deletion Borgs8472 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, I write up a really full wiki in my user area, can I present that as the new entry so it won't be deleted? I can understand not wanting to put my little entry back, but how about a fuller one? Borgs8472 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

O RLY

VFD was 6 delete (including the IP that nominated and an unsigned vote by an IP), 4 keep (including one unsigned by an IP) and one merge. Not counting IPs, this is 4 to 4, in no way consensus to delete. Counting IPs, it is 6 to 5, still not consensus. I would like to perform a merge, but the article (and its talk page!) has been protected with {{deletedpage}}, making it impossible to redirect. Note that this also applies to YA RLY, part of the same VFD. --SPUI (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep deleted for now. Two of the keep voters had a questionably sufficient edit history; the closer has the option of dismissing such votes (one of them, I believe, had about 13 article space edits). I'd like to hear from the closer on this. I could be persuaded to change my vote and give this another go on AfD. -R. fiend 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undelete please
    • Why then is it protected, keeping me from redirecting it somewhere more useful? --SPUI (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the result was called as "delete", not "merge/redirect". Thsoe are two mutually exclusive votes. One cannot be treated as the other. If you cannot understand this, I suggest you take an introductory course in logic. If you can convince enough people that this should be undeleted and it's placed on AfD again, you can try to convince people there it should be merged/redirected. I'm open to considering that possiblity. As the consensus here was somewhat questionable, you may get your way, but until then treating a delete vote as a merge is contrary to policy, and pretty blatant abuse. -R. fiend 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specifically, it is still mentioned (and was even linked until now) at Internet phenomenon, and a redirect there would make perfect sense. --SPUI (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to say that that description of deletion is completely wrong. We do not routinely protect deleted pages simply because they are deleted. There is usually nothing to stop someone recreating a different article under the same title (and a redirect is certainly different to the article). It was in this case protected after a single deletion as, I presume a prophylactic measure which is not uncommon with articles like this. The talk page was protected since it was used in the manner predicted for the article. -Splashtalk 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I have no idea why it was protected. I realize it's not routine, and I was responding to SPUI's insistence on recreation, rather than his question of protection. I realize a totally dferent article is certainly allowed to be created at some point (although I cannot conceive of "O RLY" being a legit article on a totally different thing). If it is already mentioned elsewhere a redirect (no merge) could be appropriate (I think internet lingo or whatever is much better than internet phenomenon, though). Thats' basically a different discussion, though. -R. fiend 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep deleted. It is reasonable (in the admin-might-have sense) to discount: Bob the Cannibal, Penelope D, the unsigned delete and the unsigned keep (both by anons). That leaves 5d, 2k, 1m. Numerically, we're below two-thirds, but the non-deletes are divided. I think the admin was probably within discretion, barely, although some closing explanation really is imperative in these cases. However if SPUI simply wants this unprotected, I can see no reason to deny that request. -Splashtalk 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted valid VfD. A close case, to be sure, but not so close that the closing admin needs to be taken to taske for using judgement. Also, for reasons unknown, that particular page seemed to be a haven for vandals, and we should take that into account before unprotecting it. If SPUI wants to redirect it somewhere, fine, but it should be re-protected afterwards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete, proper AfD close. --fvw* 21:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per nominator and relist OR provide content to SPUI and Keep deleted. A review of the discussion shows there wasn't really a consensus delete decision according to our practices and policies, but since he wants to merge it, we don't actually need to undelete. I think we'll have to merge the history of this article with the merge target when he completes his merge to remain compliant with GFDL, but I'm not sure. Unfocused 04:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan

Undelete

  • The book by Paul Levi (an Oxford professor) Steve pointed out does provide sound evidence for the former article. Here it is: "In the Light Garden of the Angel King: Travels in Afghanistan" by Peter Levi; Binding: Paperback Publisher: Trafalgar Square Published Date: 05/01/2001. As mentioned above. Just check it and you will find the article confirmed.
  • About the person Sher Khan: bio.afghanet.com/k.htm

UuU

Undelete -- the oldest article still preserved (see History of Wikipedia). This deletion was a big mistake. --E2m 18:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Template:Sad et al.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Sad

Was closed as keep/no consensus(as you can see from the link :)) but then deleted yesterday with the log: 22:06, 27 September 2005 Violetriga deleted "Template:Smile" (correct result of the TFD)

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

AfD debate

This article was created back in May and was promptly and rightly deleted as a vanity/crystal ball article. However the crystal ball has come to pass and this site is now a bonified game information/news website along the lines of Gamespot and IGN in their earlier years. I would like to see this article relisted and opened to organic growth now that the subject is suitably notable and no longer subject to crystal ball restrictions.Gateman1997 22:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since VfU is not AfD in reverse, can I request of the nominator that he present the significant new information that has come to light since the AfD? Thanks. -Splashtalk 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read what I wrote above. When the article was created and deleted originally, the site had no content, it was just a webboard. Significant growth has occured and this is now a full fledged gaming website with news, reviews, forum, along the lines of Gamespot. Most of the VFD reasoning has been eliminated and this article deserves a chance to be reinstated and expanded. I'm not aware of what if any changes were made post VFD that Lucky69 refered to when he locked the page, but it is possible vandals were involved as they often are on the IGN and Gamespot articles.Gateman1997 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the page-space had been vandalized by an anon user. The vandalism was patent nonsense and had nothing to do with the article content. That was the only edit since the article was deleted. While it is unusual to lock a page when there has only been a single instance of vandalism, in this case I think that Lucky69 was correct to lock the page. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Valid VfD - "organic growth"? (Nice phrase) Just because a site added some content doesn't automatically change its notability. - Tεxτurε 22:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Valid VfD. Also, while the site may have added more content, the Alexa rank of 441,232 suggests it's still not quite ready for an article yet. It does seem to be on the rise though. Maybe in a year or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. - The argument presented seems to misunderstand both the reason that the previous AfD was valid and the purpose of this page. I.e. The fact that the site now might pass AfD does not invalidate the previous AfD. However I must disagree with Starblind on one thing. If an identical article were re-created it could validly be speedied. If a new and substantially different article were to be written about this topic, it could not be deleted without another AfD, and we can't prevent and article being written for the reason given above. (Although I wish with all my heart we could.) Create User:Gateman1997/Systemwars.com (or use Talk:Systemwars.com) so that the differance sniffer can be run over it, and if it passes the page protection can be removed. It was not required to bring this here at this time.
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Agree with brenneman(t) on almost all counts here.--Nicodemus75 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, since I'm not persuaded that there is significant new information available. However, on the finer point raised above, it is reasonable to bring this here, since the page is presently protected and can't be rewritten in place, which the article could normally be. In effect this is a request for unprotection (rather than/as well as) a request for undeletion. And yes, it was protected owing to nonsense recreation, that much I can confirm. Since it was only nonsensed once, I'm willing to unprotect it since protection is not part of deletion. I would caution Gateman1997 against simply rewriting an article in that space though, without seeking some kind of second opinion on a draft in userspace or something: and to view this VfU as a second-opinion-in-advance. -Splashtalk 23:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new article cannot be created in this place since the template "Protected deleted pages" has been applied to this space. Personally, I think that's very poor form unless there have already been delete and recreate wars over the title space, as it presumes bad faith from anyone considering creating an article here no matter how different than the one deleted. The {{deletedpage}} template should not be used except where need is proven. Wikipedia is not a prophylactic community. Unfocused 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
      • Lest I forget to mention, from what I can tell, THIS article space HAS had delete/recreate shenanigans in it, so in this case, application of the template is proper. My comments above apply only in general. Unfocused 00:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC) On second thought, I really didn't need to say any more than that first sentence. Forget you read that or something.  ;-) I suppose Gateman1997 could use a /temp space, but I agree with his reasoning. Unfocused 00:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD, and the site isn't notable enough yet. --Deathphoenix 16:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted agreeing with much of the above. Dottore So 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles:

I about to undelete and AfD'd all the colo(u)r articles in this AfD, even though not all were listed here. Let me explain myself. The permalink you need to the discussion I just removed is this. Clearly, each article as listed individually is to be restored (no question), and AfD'd per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Remember that VfU is a majoritarian system at present. However, I note that a number of users only commented in the 'blanket' section at the top, and not at all on the individual listing. Some, such as Encephalon (notably twice; I'll take your later answer) request only to undelete those that had no consensus originally but then choose to undelete all that are listed: so I presume the blanket section applies to the entire AfD. Further, the blanket undelete has 8 supporters, the selective-blanket undelete has 3 supporters, and the indiviudual colours have no more than 7 comments each in total, and no more than 6 undeletes each. The majoritarian arrangement, the evident choice on the part of many editors to not comment individually and the numerically greatest support for a wholesale undeletion causes me so to act.

If you intend to make a blanket comment on the new AfDs, please do so by copy-pasting your comments, rather than making a blanket comment in one of them: do not expect the closing admin to extrapolate on your behalf in these exceptional circumstances. -Splashtalk 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Splash. It was apparent from the VfU that all the colors would have to be undeleted, so you will find no objection from me now that you have. However, you write,
Some, such as Encephalon (notably twice; I'll take your later answer) request only to undelete those that had no consensus originally but then choose to undelete all that are listed: so I presume the blanket section applies to the entire AfD.
As I'm not sure precisely what you mean, I'll just explain my votes briefly. BDAbramson created one main section explaining his VfU request and several individual sections below for the colors that had not achieved any kind of consensus on the original AfD. I wrote under the main section that I thought only those colors should be undeleted; since BDA had also listed those very colors individually, I placed my vote in those sections too. Note that all the colors he listed individually are the colors for which there was no consensus; I know because I studied the vote count on the original AfD myself and compared them to BDA's tally on the AfD Talk page. Hence, I don't think there was inconsistency in my comments (not saying that's what you're saying of course. Just sayin :)). I do think the VfU suffered from a confusion similar to that seen on the original AfD; editors started to vote "undelete all" under BDA's main section header, whereas he intended to request only individual undeletes of the colors which had not received consensus (his opening sentence on the VfU was "I request that the articles listed individually below be undeleted"). Regards—encephalon 08:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

  • Ah, folks... not sure where to list this. WolfgangMozart is listed as one of WP's oldest edits in the History of Wikipedia. When clicked on, it appears to have been speedied on 31 August 2005. Is it recoverable? Seems a shame to lose it. Can it be marked or protected so it won't be speedied again? Xoloz 11:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is recoverable, yes. Its final incarnation was a simple redirect to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It was originally intended, I presume as a CamelCase redirect before the invention of square brackets. I don't honestly know what to do: it's certainly unnecessary given the square brackets, but I think a debate at RfD concluded we would hold onto them for reasons of not breaking old links in other websites and things. -Splashtalk 12:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restored. This was not a speedy-deletion candidate. The fact that a redirect may no longer be necessary is not a reason to delete it. Redirects are cheap and as Splash said above, they serve multiple purposes. Rossami (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Votes for undeletion

Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal.

October 3

Lionel Hall

previous AfD I nominated that page for deletion a while back but a bit after I nominated a few other Harvard dorms.Those Harvard dorms was merged to List of Harvard dormitories but this one didn't cause that one was a few days late. I want to undelete this and Merge into that list. --JAranda | yeah 03:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the undelete, but I'll let you do the merge. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Built for Comfort

1 - It only takes account of member's visits

2 - Only works on IE

3 - Only works in america Let this article got deleted, allowing crappy "Elton John is dead" articles to pop up which are fake. Let there be love dudes. Dave - MrDaveS 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Freely

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for it.. but Speak Freely, the VOIP application, used to have an article and now it's deleted. I don't know what the contents of the deletions are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:29, October 2, 2005 (talk • contribs) 24.196.90.128

The only content "ok", which you can see from the deletion summary at Special:Undelete/Speak_Freely. Angela. 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FL programming language

Undelete I nominated it for copyright infringement of a section some time ago, and the whole thing was deleted. It seems (based on some talk on a re-created Talk:FL programming language) that it might've actually been wrongly deleted, and that even my original nomination was over-zealous. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • All revisions of the article, save for the very first, were substantially infringing on the source, even though it only used a small amount of a 40 page paper. There is something, as the talk page observes, about mathematics having copyright exceptions to some extent (although this was not mathematics), but this article also copied the text that went with the source-code example almost verbatim. The lead of the article, a few sentences long, does not appear to be infringing, however from what is currently available on Google. If you like, I can restore that first revision, but it's a two sentence stub and you'd be better of just writing your own since it appears you know more than two sentences about the topic. -Splashtalk 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks. If the situation's really that bad that's probably not much point in salvaging it, but you probably exaggerate when you say I know more than two sentences about the topic :) Still, I (at least) won't have time for a while to do anything (or so I keep telling myself...) and a stub might be better than nothing... —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete first revision only. If it is usable, then the it should be listed in the page history for the GFDL. Titoxd 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the version as of July 6, 2005. I disagree with the assertion that this is "substantially infringing on [section 2.1 of] the source". For example, the material fits well within fair use guidelines such as are described at [2]. The source material is made available for free, it is factual in nature, it follows logically from the design of the FL language itself, and is nothing more than a survey of some features of lambda calculus and the FL language. If there were some creative work in question here, that would be different. But it's talking about adding numbers, and about the way some programming languages determine which values should be added together. If this is a derived work of anything it's a derived work of those programming languages -- there's very little here which is the original work of the author of that postscript document. The work in question seems a valid case of fair use for every major point of fair use law -- the material is being used in an educational and non-profit context, the original work was released as an educational and non-profit work, only a tiny slice of the work is excerpted, and this use is not damaging the sales of that postscript document in any way, shape or form. RaulMiller 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be confusing fair use and not copyrightable. Even if the content in question was fair use, that doesn't allow us to GFDL it, so it would still be a copyvio. --fvw* 21:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't sue someone else for using the material, but we can certainly release it under the GFDL. Fair use would be meaningless if it prevented the use of the material in the context of copyrighted material. If what you say were true, you'd never see quotes in textbooks. Maybe you're thinking about re-release under terms other than the GFDL? RaulMiller 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear here, I'm making several assertions: I'm asserting that the essence of the material in common between this article and the other document is mathematical in character. I'm asserting that most of the structure of this material is based on lambda calculus and on the FL language itself -- that it's not unique to Aiken. Finally, I'm asserting that for any creative content that doesn't fall into those categories, it would have to fall under fair use. The best argument I can see opposed to this is that the GFDL'd material might be used in some kind of "non-educational" or "for-profit" context. As this kind of re-release could not substantially alter the rest of the picture I don't see how that could make a difference for this article. RaulMiller 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It depends. Some quotes are sufficiently short that they can not be copyrighted (mostly oneliners). If a textbook uses larger quotes, the quotes themselves cannot be relicenced. --fvw* 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're talking about literature, sure. If you're talking about a factual description of something, it's expected that the facts represented by each text book are the same. And when describing a process or a transform, it's often the case that the same descriptive words are used in the same order. If you're talking about an abstract or summary, it's usually reproduced verbatim and may consist several paragraphs (the smallest abstracts tend to be at least a paragraph long). And so on... That said, there is infringement here, simply using different words to describe what's going on would not resolve the issue. A is a derivative work of B if creative content from A appears in B -- more specifically, something that could (at least in principle) hurt the sales of or market for B. Given that, what creative content remains that Aiken might object about? Has he got a copyright on lambda calculus? On addition and multiplication? On the design of the FL language? What is this creative content that is being "substantially infringed"? How could Aiken possibly object to this wikipedia entry? RaulMiller 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're confusing two entirely separate things here. If something isn't copyrightable, it can't be fair use. Fair use only applies to copyrighted works. Once enough creativity has gone into something to allow it to be copyrightable (and that's not much), the complexity or creativity are entirely irrelevant to any further discussions of fair use. And fair use content cannot be relicenced under the GFDL (without the copyright owner's permission, at which point it would cease to be fair use content). --fvw* 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

Wordforge

  • Undelete I was refered to this page by Academic Challenger, where it was suggested I go to get my wiki undeleted. First of all, ignore my last version, readded a very quick version when my wiki was deleted in the hope that it would go back without a fuss. Unfortunately it was noticed and redeleted. Regarding the previous histories, that's what it should look like, a review and history of my website, which whilst I admit requires further wikifing, is a good entry and shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. Not many internal links still, only Trekbbs and Internet_trolls, but I feel it should stay. Oh benevolent admins, please undelete my wiki :) Borgs8472 22:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid VfD and no arguments for undeletion given. --fvw* 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I would like to know the reason it was deleted in the first place so I can argue against them! Borgs8472 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordforge. It was dismissed as non-notable. And it was re-deleted according to CSD G4, a recreation of previously deleted content. Seems like a proper deletion. Keep deleted. Titoxd 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That deletion log refered to an even older July version. I'm refering to a august/september version that was deleted without a reason being given. It was very much expanded from the deleted version in question Borgs8472 01:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Admins, was the content of the newer version substantially similar to the older version? Because if it was, then we can all agree that CSD G4 definitely applies here. Titoxd 02:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Definately, not. As I said, I began to recreate the wiki, but it was far, far less and even less wikified than the version before Borgs8472 02:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not what I asked. If the text was substantially similar, the AfD applies. I wish I had the admin bit so I could check myself... Titoxd 02:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The edit and deletion history shows that the deleted version was recreated almost exactly as-is. The article was then edited over time, adding a logo, improving the formatting and expanding some of the content. None of the changes made to the article address the fundamental conclusion of the first AFD discussion - that the website is not yet sufficiently notable to have earned a place in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There is no evidence apparent to me that the circumstances have changed. This article has so far been deleted 6 times - the original and 5 times speedy-deleted as re-created content. The re-creation of the article has been primarily carried out by one logged-in user and several anon IPs (which could all be the same person). Given the history, I've created this as a protected {{deletedpage}} pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Could be "userfied," i.e. Borgs8472, you could certainly put this on your own user page and if you say this is what you would like to do, I or any other sysop would be glad to recover the deleted text and put it on your user page for you. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the your VfU application, the original AfD appears to have been in order. As to whether CSD G4 was correctly applied to the recreation, that's a question only administrators may answer. Dpb, Splash?—encephalon 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) NB. Tito, strong hint noted. :)—encephalon 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Insofar as it describes the same bulletin board which hasn't apparently changed in the time between the two principal versions, it is substantially indentical in the information it imparts. The later creation imparts a longer list of the discussion boards and has a few sentences of intro rather than 2. It also includes what I presume is the board's logo. Insofar as the word-by-word text itself, no, they are not substantially identical. Since the AfD debate concerns itself with the subject rather than the precise text (we all know AfD is not cleanup (or hosedown, as once memorably phrased)), I would suggest that this is substantially identical and the redeletion per CSD G4 was fine. -Splashtalk 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD and per my immediately preceding comment. The nominator asks very nicely, but unfortunately you need to have a good reason for overturning the previous debate, or significant new information which might mean we need a new debate. Neither option has been provided here. -Splashtalk 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Splash and Rossami's attestations regarding the speedily deleted content.—encephalon 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid process, nn website. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note some of the new reasons I listed earlier now, I hope it will increase it's notability on your eyes. Not everything I mentioned there was on the last best version, I'm of course fine with putting in everything of interest to place the site in a more encycopedic context Borgs8472 12:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't try to re-create the article, Borgs8472. In particular, please don't abuse my trust in emailing you the old text. Trust me, bulldog tenacity, putting your best foot forward, etc. are not going to do it. The article is just going to get speedied as a re-creation of content previously voted for deletion. Don't try to re-create it under a slightly different name, either ("Wordforge Board" or anything like that). Put it on your personal user page (and incidentally Google indexes user pages, so people will be able to find it there just as easily as if it were in the main namespace). Try again in a year if your board has become obviously notable, e.g. has been written up in Wired or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, the page has been locked, I can't recreate it even if I wanted to. I'm not interested in the text you gave me, I can recreate that with copy-pastes in 5-10 minutes. I would however like the version before which had extended comments on the fora and a little history. I'm annoyed that nearly everyone commenting in this thread has been refering to the last history entry, which I hastily readded, rather than the extended one. I did make it explict in my first entry here that that was what I was refering to, yet I'm being judged on different entry that I don't even want! Borgs8472 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summery of Innacuracies in these votes Before anyone else counts up the votes and decides to jump on the bandwagon of declaring my entry suitable for deletion, I'd like to list all my counter arguments that have not been followed up on:
    • "This article has so far been deleted 6 times" - only 3 times, the last time of which didn't really count
    • "the original and 5 times speedy-deleted as re-created content. The re-creation of the article has been primarily carried out by one logged-in user and several anon IPs (which could all be the same person)" - It has been deleted on three occasions and the anon IPs were my message board users, of which I have lots
    • "Probably not, unless you become the GNAA" - Wordforge is quite infamous in certain circles, I would interested to know what criteria the GNAA fulfils to make it notable.
    • "The entry you want was properly deleted through an AFD nomination" - this is not true as I never saw any discussion about the second deletion Borgs8472 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, I write up a really full wiki in my user area, can I present that as the new entry so it won't be deleted? I can understand not wanting to put my little entry back, but how about a fuller one? Borgs8472 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

O RLY

VFD was 6 delete (including the IP that nominated and an unsigned vote by an IP), 4 keep (including one unsigned by an IP) and one merge. Not counting IPs, this is 4 to 4, in no way consensus to delete. Counting IPs, it is 6 to 5, still not consensus. I would like to perform a merge, but the article (and its talk page!) has been protected with {{deletedpage}}, making it impossible to redirect. Note that this also applies to YA RLY, part of the same VFD. --SPUI (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep deleted for now. Two of the keep voters had a questionably sufficient edit history; the closer has the option of dismissing such votes (one of them, I believe, had about 13 article space edits). I'd like to hear from the closer on this. I could be persuaded to change my vote and give this another go on AfD. -R. fiend 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undelete please
    • Why then is it protected, keeping me from redirecting it somewhere more useful? --SPUI (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the result was called as "delete", not "merge/redirect". Thsoe are two mutually exclusive votes. One cannot be treated as the other. If you cannot understand this, I suggest you take an introductory course in logic. If you can convince enough people that this should be undeleted and it's placed on AfD again, you can try to convince people there it should be merged/redirected. I'm open to considering that possiblity. As the consensus here was somewhat questionable, you may get your way, but until then treating a delete vote as a merge is contrary to policy, and pretty blatant abuse. -R. fiend 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specifically, it is still mentioned (and was even linked until now) at Internet phenomenon, and a redirect there would make perfect sense. --SPUI (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to say that that description of deletion is completely wrong. We do not routinely protect deleted pages simply because they are deleted. There is usually nothing to stop someone recreating a different article under the same title (and a redirect is certainly different to the article). It was in this case protected after a single deletion as, I presume a prophylactic measure which is not uncommon with articles like this. The talk page was protected since it was used in the manner predicted for the article. -Splashtalk 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I have no idea why it was protected. I realize it's not routine, and I was responding to SPUI's insistence on recreation, rather than his question of protection. I realize a totally dferent article is certainly allowed to be created at some point (although I cannot conceive of "O RLY" being a legit article on a totally different thing). If it is already mentioned elsewhere a redirect (no merge) could be appropriate (I think internet lingo or whatever is much better than internet phenomenon, though). Thats' basically a different discussion, though. -R. fiend 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep deleted. It is reasonable (in the admin-might-have sense) to discount: Bob the Cannibal, Penelope D, the unsigned delete and the unsigned keep (both by anons). That leaves 5d, 2k, 1m. Numerically, we're below two-thirds, but the non-deletes are divided. I think the admin was probably within discretion, barely, although some closing explanation really is imperative in these cases. However if SPUI simply wants this unprotected, I can see no reason to deny that request. -Splashtalk 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted valid VfD. A close case, to be sure, but not so close that the closing admin needs to be taken to taske for using judgement. Also, for reasons unknown, that particular page seemed to be a haven for vandals, and we should take that into account before unprotecting it. If SPUI wants to redirect it somewhere, fine, but it should be re-protected afterwards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete, proper AfD close. --fvw* 21:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per nominator and relist OR provide content to SPUI and Keep deleted. A review of the discussion shows there wasn't really a consensus delete decision according to our practices and policies, but since he wants to merge it, we don't actually need to undelete. I think we'll have to merge the history of this article with the merge target when he completes his merge to remain compliant with GFDL, but I'm not sure. Unfocused 04:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan

Undelete

  • The book by Paul Levi (an Oxford professor) Steve pointed out does provide sound evidence for the former article. Here it is: "In the Light Garden of the Angel King: Travels in Afghanistan" by Peter Levi; Binding: Paperback Publisher: Trafalgar Square Published Date: 05/01/2001. As mentioned above. Just check it and you will find the article confirmed.
  • About the person Sher Khan: bio.afghanet.com/k.htm

UuU

Undelete -- the oldest article still preserved (see History of Wikipedia). This deletion was a big mistake. --E2m 18:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Template:Sad et al.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Sad

Was closed as keep/no consensus(as you can see from the link :)) but then deleted yesterday with the log: 22:06, 27 September 2005 Violetriga deleted "Template:Smile" (correct result of the TFD)

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

AfD debate

This article was created back in May and was promptly and rightly deleted as a vanity/crystal ball article. However the crystal ball has come to pass and this site is now a bonified game information/news website along the lines of Gamespot and IGN in their earlier years. I would like to see this article relisted and opened to organic growth now that the subject is suitably notable and no longer subject to crystal ball restrictions.Gateman1997 22:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since VfU is not AfD in reverse, can I request of the nominator that he present the significant new information that has come to light since the AfD? Thanks. -Splashtalk 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read what I wrote above. When the article was created and deleted originally, the site had no content, it was just a webboard. Significant growth has occured and this is now a full fledged gaming website with news, reviews, forum, along the lines of Gamespot. Most of the VFD reasoning has been eliminated and this article deserves a chance to be reinstated and expanded. I'm not aware of what if any changes were made post VFD that Lucky69 refered to when he locked the page, but it is possible vandals were involved as they often are on the IGN and Gamespot articles.Gateman1997 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the page-space had been vandalized by an anon user. The vandalism was patent nonsense and had nothing to do with the article content. That was the only edit since the article was deleted. While it is unusual to lock a page when there has only been a single instance of vandalism, in this case I think that Lucky69 was correct to lock the page. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Valid VfD - "organic growth"? (Nice phrase) Just because a site added some content doesn't automatically change its notability. - Tεxτurε 22:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Valid VfD. Also, while the site may have added more content, the Alexa rank of 441,232 suggests it's still not quite ready for an article yet. It does seem to be on the rise though. Maybe in a year or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. - The argument presented seems to misunderstand both the reason that the previous AfD was valid and the purpose of this page. I.e. The fact that the site now might pass AfD does not invalidate the previous AfD. However I must disagree with Starblind on one thing. If an identical article were re-created it could validly be speedied. If a new and substantially different article were to be written about this topic, it could not be deleted without another AfD, and we can't prevent and article being written for the reason given above. (Although I wish with all my heart we could.) Create User:Gateman1997/Systemwars.com (or use Talk:Systemwars.com) so that the differance sniffer can be run over it, and if it passes the page protection can be removed. It was not required to bring this here at this time.
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Agree with brenneman(t) on almost all counts here.--Nicodemus75 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, since I'm not persuaded that there is significant new information available. However, on the finer point raised above, it is reasonable to bring this here, since the page is presently protected and can't be rewritten in place, which the article could normally be. In effect this is a request for unprotection (rather than/as well as) a request for undeletion. And yes, it was protected owing to nonsense recreation, that much I can confirm. Since it was only nonsensed once, I'm willing to unprotect it since protection is not part of deletion. I would caution Gateman1997 against simply rewriting an article in that space though, without seeking some kind of second opinion on a draft in userspace or something: and to view this VfU as a second-opinion-in-advance. -Splashtalk 23:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. If you have significant new information, create a new article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new article cannot be created in this place since the template "Protected deleted pages" has been applied to this space. Personally, I think that's very poor form unless there have already been delete and recreate wars over the title space, as it presumes bad faith from anyone considering creating an article here no matter how different than the one deleted. The {{deletedpage}} template should not be used except where need is proven. Wikipedia is not a prophylactic community. Unfocused 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
      • Lest I forget to mention, from what I can tell, THIS article space HAS had delete/recreate shenanigans in it, so in this case, application of the template is proper. My comments above apply only in general. Unfocused 00:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC) On second thought, I really didn't need to say any more than that first sentence. Forget you read that or something.  ;-) I suppose Gateman1997 could use a /temp space, but I agree with his reasoning. Unfocused 00:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD, and the site isn't notable enough yet. --Deathphoenix 16:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted agreeing with much of the above. Dottore So 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles:

I about to undelete and AfD'd all the colo(u)r articles in this AfD, even though not all were listed here. Let me explain myself. The permalink you need to the discussion I just removed is this. Clearly, each article as listed individually is to be restored (no question), and AfD'd per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Remember that VfU is a majoritarian system at present. However, I note that a number of users only commented in the 'blanket' section at the top, and not at all on the individual listing. Some, such as Encephalon (notably twice; I'll take your later answer) request only to undelete those that had no consensus originally but then choose to undelete all that are listed: so I presume the blanket section applies to the entire AfD. Further, the blanket undelete has 8 supporters, the selective-blanket undelete has 3 supporters, and the indiviudual colours have no more than 7 comments each in total, and no more than 6 undeletes each. The majoritarian arrangement, the evident choice on the part of many editors to not comment individually and the numerically greatest support for a wholesale undeletion causes me so to act.

If you intend to make a blanket comment on the new AfDs, please do so by copy-pasting your comments, rather than making a blanket comment in one of them: do not expect the closing admin to extrapolate on your behalf in these exceptional circumstances. -Splashtalk 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Splash. It was apparent from the VfU that all the colors would have to be undeleted, so you will find no objection from me now that you have. However, you write,
Some, such as Encephalon (notably twice; I'll take your later answer) request only to undelete those that had no consensus originally but then choose to undelete all that are listed: so I presume the blanket section applies to the entire AfD.
As I'm not sure precisely what you mean, I'll just explain my votes briefly. BDAbramson created one main section explaining his VfU request and several individual sections below for the colors that had not achieved any kind of consensus on the original AfD. I wrote under the main section that I thought only those colors should be undeleted; since BDA had also listed those very colors individually, I placed my vote in those sections too. Note that all the colors he listed individually are the colors for which there was no consensus; I know because I studied the vote count on the original AfD myself and compared them to BDA's tally on the AfD Talk page. Hence, I don't think there was inconsistency in my comments (not saying that's what you're saying of course. Just sayin :)). I do think the VfU suffered from a confusion similar to that seen on the original AfD; editors started to vote "undelete all" under BDA's main section header, whereas he intended to request only individual undeletes of the colors which had not received consensus (his opening sentence on the VfU was "I request that the articles listed individually below be undeleted"). Regards—encephalon 08:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=24679969"