Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 1

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

1 2008 requests
- 1.1 Carolyn Doran
2 2007 requests

[change] 2008 requests

[change] Carolyn Doran

I am courteously requesting that we restore the article about Carolyn Doran. She is notable in that her saga throughout the 1990's and up to 2007 was written about -- independently -- by The Register, the Tampa Tribune, and the Associated Press (which was republished by the Washington Post, ABC News, and the San Jose Mercury News. Numerous blogs commented on this person, and Wikipedia co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Jimmy Wales commented publicly and substantially about this living person. Exclusion of a Simple English article about this person carries with it an unseemly taint of self-protecting project POV. Please restore. - PathWrote (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment : this search has me worried about notability. Even then, not all of the results from this search are for the Carolyn Doran that you are wanting to get undeleted. Razor flame 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Try this search with maiden name, to limit mostly to pages about this subject. Are you saying 13,800 Google hits is insufficient? - PathWrote (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That search searches for everything with any of those three words in it. this search eliminates that possibility, and it still might not have enough. Razor flame 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to change my example search to this. Looks like about 140 or so unique pages on the Internet have been devoted to this subject. Still, the level of reputation of some of those pages (Huffington Post, USA Today, ABC News, etc.) is not to be trifled with. - PathWrote (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave deleted Not only because of the deletion review but because the article was not neutral, and negative piece, contrary to BLP, which I believe can properly be applied here.--Bärl iner 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Leave deleted per Barliner. - Huji ^reply 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Leave deleted per above.-- Lights talk 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Leave deleted as per above and as per my notability concerns. Razor flame 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as deleted, per above: notability for the subject has not been established. Anthøny 18:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Result:Leave deleted Bärl iner 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[change] 2007 requests

[change] Milw0rm

Milw0rm Deletion - Sept 16 and again on Sept 24. The reason for speedy deletion was quoted by KnowledgeOfSelf and Kingboyk as a CSD A7 "(Group): Article about a club or group that does not assert significance." I find this ironic because it appears that the people who deleted it must not have read the article? The hacking of a nuclear facility in India for the purpose of deterring Nuclear Weapons development is a HUGE story, and will be for years to come. This group is very significant as they were some of the founders that brought HACTIVISM to the front lines. Some individuals put a lot of time and effort into obtaining and posting this information, it's not like it's easy to come by... The google cache to the original article is here [1] — This unsigned comment was added by 38.119.107.75 (talk • changes).

I think you are confused. Milw0rm has never been created or deleted here. You seem to be talking about the Milw0rm article on English Wikipedia, in which case you need to request undeletion on that Wikipedia. Thanks. · Tygrrr^·talk· 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[change] Amasebail

If I nominate an article for deletion, many vote delete, others vote keep, and then a user makes a great point. I decide to take it off for deletion. If I regret nominating it for deletion, the result should be keep, right? The dispute should be over. Apparently, not so. This is what happened when the article Amasebail was deleted. Tygartl1 had to continue the dispute, put it up for deletion, when I regretted an action that I made. The deletion resulted in delete. I did not want this, because Blockinblox made a good point. He said that he believed an encyclopædia should have no limits for what cities, towns, villages, hamlets, or communities should have entries there. No limits on how big, notable, or widely commercialised the cities are, is what Blockinblox meant. So, he made a good point, I retracted and regretted the nomination. Tygart had to bring it up. I felt so strongly about this, I had to use a test account to sockpuppeteer in a deletion vote. I used David. This caused great controversy. So, I hereby contest the deletion of this article and I encourage others to vote here too. Keep or delete, please vote. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been through the RfD process and was voted on by many users and the majority of votes was to delete. My request for deletion had nothing to do with you. My second request was valid. There is no time limit as to how quickly an article can be re-requested for deletion. And I might point out that during the first request (yours), the majority of votes were to delete when you chose to end the request by withdrawing it. Your withdrawal was perfectly fine and allowed. You followed the rules and so did I. I don't see this article being un-deleted because, by following all rules, it was legitimately deleted by community consensus. · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I decided to nominate, then regretted it. That should have been the end. It wasn't, and I want it back. If it weren't for me, there would have been no fuss. Please, I am PLEADING to undelete. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure I would have come across the article eventually and requested deletion even if no one else ever had. It absolutely had nothing to do with you. · Tygartl1^·talk· 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Against Undeletion: While I did vote to keep the article in its RfD, the vote resulting in a clear 2-1 opinion to delete it so I accept that decision. The only reason stated here to overturn that decision is that a user is contesting the vote in which he used a sockpuppet on the losing side of the vote. The only controversy in this RfD is that a sockpuppet was used to try and change the outcome. That attempt was not only found but had actually failed anyway. To try and reverse the decision based on this controversy just does not make much sense. Had the article been deleted because of an invalid vote, that would be one thing, but in this case the invalid vote had no effect on the outcome. -- Creol(talk) 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Undelete - as I stated at Wikipedia talk:Settlements, "in the event of a disagreement about a specific settlement, unlike with humans or companies, I would rather err on the side of anyone who wanted the settlement kept, for whatever reason they felt was important enough..." We know this is a real place, we have room, and still I hate the idea of our having to pass judgement on whether or not every single place on Earth is "notable" enough, when those who hold this opinion may well live on the other side of the world (talk about "imperialism"!) Blockinblox - talk 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Against undeletion. It's not so much about how notable it is. My problem with having an article about this place is that all we know about it is that it exists and it is in India. We need to have verifiable sources of information about topics that are included into an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, likey because of its size, there is little to no information from verifiable, reliable sources. That makes it virtually impossible to write an article that contains anything more than: "Amasebail is a place in India". Which frankly is not enough information to have an article (as it would be the equivalent of "Joe Smith is a Canadian man".) · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Against undeletion. Per above, with the biggest factor being the verifiability of the matter. Without looking back at the article, I believe I thought this article could have been deleted for lack of information as well, let alone notability. - BrownE34 talk contribs 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I don't think it's necessary to go over the same discussion over notability and verifiability issues. Doing so, without any new elements that justify debating it again and so soon after this article's deletion (especially when a clear consensus in favor of deleting it existed), goes against the very spirit of the Undeletion process. Let's not lose our focus from the point the nominator has based this resquest on, which is a formal aspect: the issue here is, whether or not a VfD process is valid after the editor who nominated it has withdrawn the request. The answer to this question is, yes it is, when a consensus endorsing said deletion has become clear, regardless of the nominator's original position. Withdrawal usually generates an immediate delisting of the request when there's a clear majority of editors in favor of keeping an article, since no further effect will take place. However, this is a typical case of the first situation. Further discussion is not necessary, unless new evidence of verifiable and reliable sources on this place are brought up to the community's attention. Phaedriel - 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your notability "guidelines" are silly, and have no place in a real encyclopædia. Deletionism is not "creating an open-source inclusive encyclopædia. Get serious, people. I am sorry to be so rude and/or blunt, but it is pathetic that people ponder over whether something is notablewhen we're trying to build an encyclopædia here, and only in special cases should we delete articles. Actually, the problem there was not notability anyway, but he requested multiple times to have it deleted. This is not one such special case, BLP or BDP here does not matter, nor does notability. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleted - First, when consensus is there about deleting an article, we cannot argue the consensus and say it shouldn't be deleted. Deletion and undeletion process, and all the giudelines, all of them, are the result of consensus. In my point of view, consensus of the users is much more important than a single statement in a guideline. Second, unlike some other people here, I believe what makes an encyclopedia different from a bunch of information about every thing is the notability guideline. Unlike people who believe we have room and time for everything to be added here, I believe we should learn to focus on things which have a place in an encyclopedia. And if one argues that eventually every city can have an article here, I would answer that if that is somethign which will finally happen, let it happen in the final stages, not now. Third, if I can recall clearly, the article in question here, was about a city, about the existance of which we had no reliable source. When we don't have a reliable source to prove the existance of an object, how can we have a reliable source to prove its being important enough to be mentioned on an encyclopedia? All in all, I strongly suggest this article to be kept deleted. - Huji ^reply 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Redwood Creek Wines

Redwood Creek Wines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
I posted a page about Redwood Creek Wines last week and the page was deleted within one day with the reasoning being "blatant advertising." I was just wondering how to edit the copy so that the page is not deleted again. We have posted pages in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._%26_J._Gallo_Winery being one) and I was wondering how these pages are any different from the one I posted about Redwood Creek. This is an urgent business matter and I really appreciate your timely feedback. My email address is mengel@hunterpr.com or you could reach me at directly at 212 679 6600 ext 266. Thank you, Meredith Engel

[change] Briefsism

Endorse deletion as the deleting, er, person... The article was deleted per quick deletion criterion G4 - a similar article was listed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, and subsequently deleted in accordance with the deletion policy. J Di 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleted. It is true, but regarded as a joke rather than a cult. That, of course, is my opinion.-- Tdxi ang 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[change] G-spot vibrator and Egg vibrator

Articles were restored and listed on WP:RfD. J Di 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep it deleted, obviously. Such "instructional" articles have a tendency to misdirect normal instincts and are actually harmful, besides serving the interests of those selling such items as indicated by the "external links" linking to a vibrator sales website. I have to see it in my email, but here too? Alternatively, as it is non core, I would rather see it merged with Vibrator (sensual) instead of having an article for every kind of sex toy out there. Blockinblox - talk 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
very weak keep I checked out these articles before the deletion, but I must say they were a little to instructional. Also it would be better to merge them with Vibrator (sensual). If kept it should be less pornographic and instructional. And links to vibrator sales are also not appropriate in my eyes.... ;) The life of brian 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Undelete and relist on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion - no criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion rules seem to apply (can't find "inappropriate content" there), unless these pages were pure vandalism (which I doubt). М иша13 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Undelete. These may not have much merit (and prob. need rewriting) but the community should be able to handle this. Sue W 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Articles should have been QD'd the first time. They meet the qualification under A4 - They do not explain why they are notable. I would question if there are multiple non trivial published works by reliable sources (The foundation of notability) on them. There is certainly no such work listed in their external links either here or on en:wiki that notability can be verified with. As no one has stated that they believe the items are notable, it does not meet the qualification of going to RfD on challenge. The redeletion (as many times as needed) of reposted deleted material in the exact form it was deleted in is only covered by G4 if the article was RfD'd not QD'd but as the article is identical to the first QD, it is still not notable for the exact same reason and should be deleted as A4 again. G4 has a no repeat clause, A4 does not and can be used over and over if it still applies. -- Creol(talk) 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Relist on RFD - These could be legitimate articles with some attention. I'm not a big fan of listing random sex toys on Wikipedia, so I'd vote for its deletion, but other users would want to weigh in at the RFD. PullToOpen^Talk 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Undelete. I have created one of these articles and I obviously want them to be available to everyone. I would gladly try and rewrite my article (and possible the author of the other article would also do so), but if the community votes the deletion of the articles, I don't think I will argue. Sil 09:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Vibrator (sensual). ...Aurora... 11:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time, it was voted to merge them to Vibrator (sensual) (see here). The last non-redirect revisions of G-Spot vibrator and Egg Vibrator have little additional info. I would therefore propose you extend the Vibrator (sensual) page, and once this has grown enough content, the community can then decide what to do with it. --Eptalon 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[change] Harris Scarfe

I am nominating the abovvementioned article for undeletion. The article was deleted for 'unsiimplified en-wiki copy and paste' by Tygarrt11. I did simplify this article, change a whole section from a complex list among other work. I try my hardest to not breach policy,there is no set of words that can be used(or must), and it was simplifyed! I am at least that this is restored to my userspace so I can work on it. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to let another admin make the final decision on this one. I would suggest comparing the most recent version of the page here at Simple English (found here) with the August 15th version at English Wikipedia which is the most recent version before the page was created here (found here) by copying the SE version, pasting on EN, and hitting "Show changes". This is what I did before deleting the page and made a judgment decision that on a 17,000+ byte article, not enough changes had been made after a 10-day period to make it an appropriate simple addition to our project. In my opinion, even a stub using simple English would better than an un-simple copy-paste and I would encourage Spiderpig to try to create a thoroughly simplified long version of this article or a stubbified version rather than undelete this. · Tygrrr^·talk· 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Following the same procedure, I agree that the changes were generally minor ones, and the article can be called an incorrectly attributed copy of En WP, and can be deleted as per copyvio (because of violation of GFDL). - Huji ^reply 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine then, I agree. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Category: Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 1

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Contents

[change] 2008 requests

[change] Carolyn Doran

[change] 2007 requests

[change] Milw0rm

[change] Amasebail

[change] Redwood Creek Wines

[change] Briefsism

[change] G-spot vibrator and Egg vibrator

[change] Harris Scarfe

Views

Getting around

Search

In other languages