Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< June 7 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 9 >

8 June 2008

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ulteo (edit | 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]

More specifically, for comparison:
(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. Shereth 15:13, 9 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: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
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Bormann (edit | 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 above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Inventions in the Islamic world – AfD keep closure endorsed – RMHED (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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
]

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
    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.
    talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User talk:SlimVirgin – Deletion endorsed, as there certainly isn't anything like a consensus to undelete. Whilst this large scale deletion of a significant chunk of talk page history was far from ideal it is in the process of being restored by ElinorD (minus the harassment) albeit at a less than optimal pace. Maybe ElinorD wouldn't be adverse to offers of administrative help in this regard. So to summarise, this is undoubtedly a controversial deletion, though to undelete against consensus would be even more controversial and likely as not would all end in tears before bedtime.
    I'm not an admin but I've closed it anyways, given that it's been open 6 days and the last comment was over 42 hrs ago. (Please feel free to revert if you strongly oppose my closing). I consider myself to be wholly neutral in this matter, having no conflict of interest. I have never posted on SlimVirgin's talkpage and she has never posted on mine. In fact I've never had any direct interaction with her at all. – RMHED (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:SlimVirgin (edit | [[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
    GRBerry 04:27, 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. Shereth 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.
    WP:HARASS, it is time to face the music for your actions, SlimVirgin. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:45, 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.
    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]
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?
    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]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Derelict (Alien) (edit | 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]

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, --
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]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Drill 'n bass (edit | 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
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • a redirect to Genie (feral child) – Deletion endorsed –
    Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
A redirect to Genie (feral child) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|RfD)

Courtesy blanked


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:AFD. Deletion review is exclusively for reviewing past deletions or deletion discussions. –  Sandstein  14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of environmental websites (edit | 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]

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]
  • I'll point out that this article is a list of Wikipedia article that describe external websites, so it's not entirely straightforward. eaolson (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I agree with SmokeyJoe, and moreover there seems to have been some confusion about whether the deleted page was a list of articles or a directory of websites. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It straightforward enough. We have articles that describe websites (and we have criteria for which ones we describe). Certainly we can list the articles on this topic, just like we could on any other topic. If they're notable enough for an individual article, then why shouldn't we list them? The opposite of OR. the opposite of indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_8&oldid=1138433335"