Inline videos. See also:Category: Articles with embedded Videos..

Biocrawler:Votes for undeletion

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

simple:Biocrawler:Request_for_undeletion zh:Biocrawler:恢复条目投票

Deletion Tools

Articles {{vfd}}
Templates {{tfd}}
Images {{ifd}}
Categories {{cfd}} {{cfr}}
Stub types {{sfd-t}} {{sfd-c}}
Copyvios {{copyvio}}
Undeletion
Mergers

Redirects {{rfd}}
Page moves {{move}}
Speedy {{delete}} {{db}}
Patent {{nonsense}}
Unfree images

{{Move to Wiktionary}}
{{Move to Wikisource}}
{{Move to Wikibooks}}
{{Move to Wikibooks Cookbook}}
{{Move to Wikiquote}}

Deletion policy
Deletion log
Deletion watchlist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Template%3ADeletiontools) | . (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Deletiontools&action=edit)

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Biocrawler:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

[edit]

Purpose of this page

It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:

People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Biocrawler would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.
Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. 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.

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 Biocrawler talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

[edit]

How to use this page

To nominate a page for undeletion:

Place the page title on Biocrawler:Votes for undeletion, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry. (~~~~)
- Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with policy after being listed on Biocrawler:Votes for Deletion should not be listed unless new information has come to light. If the was deleted because it was a stub and contained little or no information and you believe you can write a non-trivial non-stub article on the subject, you should be bold and write it, rather than request the stub for undeletion. The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to policy" does not apply to a good article about a subject for which a stub was deleted earlier.
If the page was deleted via the Biocrawler:Votes for Deletion process rather than something that was speedily deleted, place a notice on Biocrawler:Votes for deletion with a link to the Biocrawler:Votes for undeletion heading for the article.

If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).

When undeleting an article:

List the article on Biocrawler:Votes for deletion. Further discussion can take place on the votes for deletion page, and after about a week the undeleted page will either be deleted again, or left undeleted.
If the deletion was not via VFD, notify the deleting admin that you undeleted the page.

If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete. If you wish to only view a deleted article, list it in the temporary undeletion section and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form — either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also Biocrawler:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.

[edit]

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.

[edit]

June 21

==== Thomas Mesereau ==== Rredirect articles to this gentleman (a lawyer who was involved in the recent Jackson trial) are being systematically deleted, reserving only a lead article which without the redirects some people will never find. Could someone please arbitrate on which redirects ought to exist. Simon Cursitor 13:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) This appears to have sorted itself out. Thank you. --Simon Cursitor 10:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Temporary undeletion

[edit]

Votes for undeletion

[edit]

June 22, 2005

[edit]

Vince DeMentri

I see no reson why this person should be deleted as opposed to the numerous article on numerious other brodacasters, espically those from the New York market and no one has question those articles. The "vote" was tainted by to many sockpuppett votes froma user that has a sigificant anti-Philadelphia bias. For those who do not know Philadelphia is not mid-market, Tulsa is mid-market, Philadelphia is the 4th largest televison market in the Univted States, only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are ranked higher, whcih means on any give night theis anchor is seen by some where around 1,000,000 television watchers. WP:BIO is a flawed process, based on it's cretiera i would estimate that some where arond 50% if not more articles based on entertainment related figures would be deleatable. And we are in shuch in a hury to delete articles on real people that arn't vanity, we let sand the hundreds of artivcle on minor characters from things like starwars, pokemon, many artciles are just a chart, et al. But thats the VFD mistake for you. But being i am asking the "establishment" to do something aginst their grain, in the end this undeletion request will more then likely be futile. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like the VfD process or WP:BIO, try changing them first. This seems to be a correctly done VfD, Keep deleted. --W(t) 06:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- the establishment at work again. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, including alleged sockpuppets that vote was 12-7 which is not a consensus. Exluding them makes seems to make it even less of a consensus. Kappa 06:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, VFD was valid. Votes of new users (plausible socks) should be discounted, and not all such votes are marked such in the discussion (e.g. AdamTheHun has ~30 edits). I'd say cesarb has done well in sorting it out. Plus, articles must stand on their own, and comparing the deletion of an article on a person to the keeping of an article on pokemon is a false analogy. R adiant _>|< 08:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. The VFD debate is here. When I make a vote tally I find these clearly "good" delete votes: Spotteddogsdotorg, Geogre, RickK, Smack, JamesBurns, Xcali, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Grue, Quale. UncleFloyd's is also probably good faith, but his first edit was June 14 while the debate started June 12. In total 9 or 10 delete votes. As for keep votes we find Kappa, Bastique, SchmuckyTheCat, AdamTheHun, Unfocused, and Kaibabsquirrel. In total 6 keeps. This is a majority for deletion, but it is well short of a two thirds majority, and definitely not a consensus, and I see nothing unusual in the comments and reasons given to say that there was a consensus after all. On the contrary, considering that the VFD debate for Tracy Davidson resulted in a keep, consistency would be that Vince DeMentri also be kept. The VFD debate was valid, but the correct result would have been calling it "keep, no consensus". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, interesting. If you go by contributions, then UncleFloyd's vote is valid and AdamTheHun's is not, making the ratio 10 to 5. If you go by date of account creation, then UncleFloyd's vote is not valid, and Adam's is, making the ratio 9 to 6. If you go by rationale of voting (or lack thereof) then both sides are rather lacking. Bottom line? Cesarb was not out of line in deleting this. Since I believe VFU should be about the process and not the content, my vote to keep deleted stands. We may want to consider making the process more explicit, but that, too, has its dangers. Radiant_>|< 09:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - AdamTheHun's account has been at Biocrawler almost as long as mine has and should be counted. The fact that UncleFloyd has continued to make constructive edits makes me lean towards counting his vote, so 10-6 is my count. Not a consensus in my book, nor would 11-6 be a consensus. In general I think a closing admin should have a very good reason to delete an article if the debate is short of a two-thirds majority. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - One other thing about VFD, there is no well established rules for what is the suffrage, but the VFD header does say something about the time the user been at Biocrawler ("Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made."), while it does not say anything about number of edits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD. One thing to keep in mind is that VfD is not only about vote counting, but is also about the vote closer exercising judgement based on the discussion. The number of votes was almost exactly on the border for consensus, so ceserb had to look at the discussion itself. I don't think he made the decision out of process, so therefore I think it should be kept deleted. --Death phoenix 12:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the one who deleted it, I have done a recount, to be able to present how I counted things there:
- Spotteddogsdotorg: delete
- Hohokus and Melvis: both delete. Both are sort of new, but were not created after the voting began. I believe I ignored Melvis, because it had too few edits and all were VfD or TV related.
- Geogre: delete
- Kappa: keep
- Bastique: keep
- Smack: delete
- JamesBurns: delete
- Xcali: delete
- Jeffrey O. Gustafson: delete
- SchmuckyTheCat: keep
- ConeyCyclone: delete, but too new (created on the same day of the log). Ignored.
- Jinkleberries: keep, but too new (created on the same day of the log), and suspicious (see the noticeboard discussion). Ignored.
- RickK: delete
- AdamTheHun: keep. Few edits, and I believe all TV related, but old enough.
- Grue: delete
- Unfocused: keep
- Kaibabsquirrel: keep
- Quale: delete
- UncleFloyd: delete, but too new. Ignored.
Total: 10-6
That value might not be exactly the same one I used the first time, but it will be pretty close. As said above, there are no established rules as to how much is needed, and the discussions count. Other admins might count things differently; I'm just presenting the way I did. And as to whether to keep deleted or undelete, I have no opinion; I abstain.
--cesarb 12:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted We must remember that VfDs are not votes in the strictest sense, and that the regardless of the exact count, it's up to the closing admin to make the call. While an undelete might be warranted if the closing admin's decision is obviously directly opposed to the consensus, that clearly is not the case here. It was a close one, the admin made the call, and that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Valid VfD, Keep deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 20, 2005

[edit]

Stacey Castro

She is a bona-fide entertainment industry executive who manages known artists and actors. Many of her clients are listed here in Biocrawler. Yahoo, Google, etc. give many search results for this person.

comment as VFD'ed as vanity, and got consensus to delete, albeit with a low number of votes (two deletes, one abstention). Was later recreated, and speedied for that. At first glance her page is sorely lacking in verifiability. R adiant _>|< 07:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Went through a valid VFD here. --Death phoenix 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Valid VFD (with a low vote count, but there's no rule against that). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. With a low vote count I am sometimes willing to vote undelete if there is information about the subject that did not surface at the VFD. Unfortunately, managers are not inherently notable while the artists are, and I see no good reason to overturn this debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - valid vfd vote - Tεx τ urε 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 19, 2005

[edit]

Image:Ac.aidsindia.jpg

Was linked to in the latest BJAODN entry, and I'm curious to see what it was. (preceding unsigned comment by 220.238.165.143 17:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but images are unundeletable. --cesarb 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's an image of the same name on other wikis, not 100% sure that it's the same one, but it probably is. Try this (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9:Ac.aidsindia.jpg). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I remember it, and yes that was the image.Zeimusu | (Talk page)
Anyone knows why it was deleted. Maybe it should be re-uploaded? Many pictures exist just for BJAODN's sake. Grue 05:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- From the logs:
  - 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 Dbenbenn deleted "Image:Ac.aidsindia.jpg" (on WP:IFD since March 31)
  --cesarb 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Normally an image is not deleted if it is used in any article (even BJAODN). This one must have slipped past. - Tεx τ urε 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 18, 2005

[edit]

Category:Causes célèbres

This category was proposed for deletion on grounds of vagueness but the vagueness simply came from editors putting their articles in it wrongly. A cause célèbre is something quite definite. I created the category in December and tried to put all the causes célèbres I could think of in it - there were about 20. Since then it has grown to more than 90 which is an indication that this category is well thought-of by its users. I was not alerted to the deletion debate until finding it by accident just under a week after it had started, which I think means that it had insufficient chance for proper consideration. David | Talk 15:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Original discussion from CfD is here: Biocrawler:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11 --Kbdank71 16:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason why? If I had had the opportunity I would have made the case for its retention immediately it had been nominated, but I was not told and just chanced upon it. No reason was ever given for nominating it, and as you must surely realise the number of people who visit WP:CFD is tiny. This issue simply has not been considered and it deserves at the least a debate. Please do me the courtesy of arguing it rather than relying on the caprice of who happens to wander by Categories for Deletion. David | Talk 16:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - After reading the discussions made at CfD, I agreed with the points made in favor to delete. --Kbdank71 17:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - What 'discussions'? There were none! David | Talk 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - The original discussion from CfD is here: Biocrawler:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11 --Kbdank71 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Makes my point entirely. It's a list of assertions. No-one makes an argument until I added my own vote. David | Talk 17:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        People make the argument that the category is ill-defined. The distinction between a normal cause and a Cause Célèbres may be perfectly clear to you, but there exists no consensual non-ambiguous definition thereof. Keep deleted. R adiant _>|< 21:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
        A cause célèbre isn't a cause. It's a French phrase in common use in English. The French word 'cause' means a legal case in English. Do I take it from the fact that you did not know this that you are in general ignorance as to the significance of the articles in the category? David | Talk 23:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        You know, asserting that other people lack the intelligence required to join the debate is not winning you any points for civility, nor is it a sound argument. R adiant _>|< 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
        Stop distorting what I've written. Intelligence is completely different to knowledge, and it's knowledge which you manifestly lacked. How about reconsidering your vote now you know better? David | Talk 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        How about you reading WP:CIV? R adiant _>|< 08:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        Proposing my favourite category for deletion and not telling me is a very uncivil thing to do. David | Talk 09:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        If you had had it on your watchlist, you would have known. How exactly are people supposed to know it's your favorite category? R adiant _>|< 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        That is one of the silliest arguments I've heard on WP yet (and that's saying something). Do you really think that the Wikimedia Foundation keeps a master list somehwere of everyone's favourite stuff, and sends a singing telegram to your door when one of your faves is up for deletion? Come on, now. Since it's important to you, you should have put it on your watch list. Keeping up with your favourite WP content is your responsibility, not WP's or anyone else's. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Question: Can you explain how this category is different than Category:Landmark cases? Or why we should keep, in the english Biocrawler, a clear duplicate of Landmark cases, just using French? --Kbdank71 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I'll try. A Cause celebre is not necessarily always a legal case, or a legal case where a decision has been rendered. Category:Landmark cases implies a decision which is final, all arguements have ceased (to wit, Brown v. Board of Education, etc); Lee Harvey Oswald, on the otherhand, never stood trial, so his invlovement (or lack thereof) would qualify as a cause celebre; similiarly O. J. Simpson, while fully exonerated, some would still consider a cause celebre. A cause celebre could be applied to a political scandal, like Filegate, or Iran contra, cause it suggests NPOV in absence of a final judicial finding which then would make it a fully qualified scandal. Nobs01 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid CfD for valid reasons—no possibility of clear criteria for inclusion, and no purpose served by trying to form such a group other than to attach a POV designation to the articles. Postdlf 16:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's competely untrue. But surely the point is that that issue was never raised during the CFD discussion. David | Talk 16:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - It's why I voted to delete in the first place, even though I didn't bother typing it out (an express rationale isn't necessary for a vote, just for the deletion nomination). The words "POV", "inherently arbitrary", and "vague" were also used, so everyone but you were apparently on the same page with this one. Postdlf 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - There was no "express rationale" for the deletion nomination - no rationale whatsoever. David | Talk 18:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid CfD. People can express their opinions or not, though I wish they would, but their votes are valid whether you agree with them or not. RickK 21:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying their votes are invalid. I'm saying the valid votes of those who want to keep the Category have not been counted because they have not been cast because those editors were unaware of the debate. That's unacceptable. David | Talk 21:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Er, what? The page was listed for a week (per procedure) and had a plainly visible tag on the category itself stating "this category is to be deleted". It got more votes than the average CFD entry. I'm afraid we cannot get every Biocrawlern's input on *FD pages. Radiant_>|< 21:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    - What do you mean "Er, what"? One week is clearly not sufficient because CFD doesn't get the traffic. I'm not saying that every registered user must vote but one week is a ridiculously short time for a page which is barely noticed. Please do not misrepresent me again. David | Talk 22:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - If you disapprove of present CFD policy, you should propose an amendment. Plain fact is that by present policy, this category was properly deleted. Regarding your accusation of misrepresenting, please show me where I'm representing you in the first place. R adiant _>|< 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
        Your misrepresentation is your claim that I demanded that every Biocrawlern's vote be needed on the CFD debate. David | Talk 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Ironically, that is a misrepresentation of my statement. R adiant _>|< 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted Valid CfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. Please supply an argument. David | Talk 22:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, so far, most of your reasoning is that not enough people voted for the CfD. In reality, the CfD got more votes than average and was up for the normal time as stated in official policy. I don't see any evidence at all that policy wasn't followed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - That's not an argument against undeletion. David | Talk 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Actually, it is. There are only two circumstances in which undeletion can happen, and they're listed right on top of this very page under the "Purpose of this page" heading. Reason #2 clearly does not apply here, and reason #1 doesn't fit either because deletion policy was fully followed. In fact, it specifically states, and I quote: "Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion." Therefore, not only is there is no reason to undelete, there is no reason (within policy) to even nominate for undeletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Your problem seems to be with the CfD process in general, not with this particular CfD. You might want to bring any suggestions over to Biocrawler talk:Categories for deletion. -Sean Curtin 07:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    - That's a separate issue though. The defective current policy should not be allowed to abolish a category which is extremely popular with editors, having now gathered more than 100 articles. David | Talk 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete; Oxford defines as "A notorious legal case; generally a controversy or scandal that attracts much attention." It expresses NPOV for a "scandel" where there is a "good guy/bay guy" dispute. Nobs01 00:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted a perfectly valid CFD. I stand by my original view that causes célèbre is far too vague a notion for a category. - SimonP 00:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. A lot of the votes both on the original CfD and on this page seem to have happened because people don't understand the meaning of the phrase. Due process is all very well, but it doesn't trump common sense. Pcb21| Pete 00:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete, I see this as being quite an important category. --Kiand 02:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted/Re-delete. Ambiguous and, in its current incarnation, far too broad in scope; could theroetically cover anything and anyone that has ever caused controversy. (Paula Abdul? Come on.) Category:Controversies could cover the general entries in this category, and Category:Legal cases or Category:Legal trials could cover the specifically trial-related entries. Category:Controversies doesn't exist (justifiably, IMHO, as it would also be ambiguously broad), and the latter category or categories could be created from, or as a parent to, Category:Landmark cases. -Sean Curtin 07:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Surely a Category:Controversies is a power of magnitude more vague than a Cause célèbre? Why do you promote it as an alternative when it clearly is not? David | Talk 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not - I did say that it was as vague as this category is. (Then again, somebody thought that Category:Controversial books was a good idea.) -Sean Curtin 05:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The VfD for this appears to have been conducted properly, yet for some reason, the Category appears to still be in existence, for whatever reason, whether because it was improperly removed (which begs the question, "What maladies affect the admins?", was never actually removed (which would beg the question, "why a VfU?"), or has been vandalistically reïnstated (which begs the question, why has a RfC not been filed against the apparently vandalist reïnstator?). So, like I said, the VfD appears to have been conducted properly, so this should remain deleted, but if this really is a rehash of the vote at the original CfD discussion, I'd like to weigh in by saying, delete this arbitrary Cat. Tomer ^TALK 07:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
- The category was marked for emptying, but before that could be done, it was listed here, presumably to keep it from happening. --Kbdank71 15:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, went through CfD properly and the reasoning given (much too fuzzy) makes sense. --W(t) 23:51, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Undelete. Valid, worthwhile, and encyclopedic category. BlankVerse ∅ 10:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, inherently POV and vague collection, hece useless. There were millions of notable events. mikka (t) 06:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Degrees of Cambridge University

This was speedied from the look of the deletion log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Degrees+of+Cambridge+University), but I'm 99.9999% sure I had read the page before. I suspect it had been vandalised and speedied a little too fast. I could be wrong, though.-Splash 03:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Only two edits in the undeletion history—an obvious test of random characters, and the application of the speedy delete tag. Postdlf 03:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This seems to be a weird article to suddenly stick vandalism on, given the existence of a similar article in Degrees of Oxford University. But it's possible the vandal simply followed a redlink from Master's degree. --Death phoenix 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - nonsense - entire content: "dtht" - Tεx τ urε 15:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 16, 2005

[edit]

Digg

[1] (http://digg.com) has a huge audience and had a good original article (before the second delete). If there's a way to revive the article before the first delete, then this would be desirable. --Hoovernj 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - article was legitimately deleted using vfd process - see Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Digg (2) -- Francs2000 | Talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new) [[]] 22:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted - Valid VfD - no need for more adverts. - Tεx τ urε 22:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The original article has been recreated so many times that the redirect is now protected. I see no reason to open up this can of worms again. --Death phoenix 02:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Valid VFD which was marred by a brigade of sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Valid VFD, sockpuppet-supported article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've been registered for less than a week, so I don't get a vote. That's ok; it's obvious why the suffrage rules are there. However, I marked digg.com for speedy a couple days ago, and it's been bothering me ever since; I in fact tracked down VFU specifically to propose this article, and somehow I'm not surprised to see it's already listed. The site currently has an Alexa rank of 11,749 (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.digg.com), and was in the 7,000s immediately after digg.com was deleted. In contrast to the 1 google hit claimed in the first VFD, or even the correction later, citing 8,670 links and 121,000 hits, it now has 13,800 inbound links (http://www.google.com/search?q=link:digg.com) and an astounding 884,000 hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22digg.com%22). This is a far cry from the Alexa-rank-in-the-millions, 10-inbound-link website ad that gets deleted every day. Having an article on Biocrawler will give them little advertising benefit, the anons marring the first VFD were likely entirely independent of each other, and it seems likely that the re-creations (I see 12 in the delete log) were done in good faith. Isn't it time for a reconsideration on VFD? --Cryptic (talk) 14:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not funny when popular sites like this one get deleted while obscure site with Alexa rank 600261 gets a lot of keep votes. I can't find an explanation. Grue 17:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I consider Digg to be a site notable enough that it could get a well-written article, but I am not happy with articles whose full text is "Digg is a news site." --Mysidia 04:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Looking around, I noticed on Digg: [2] (http://www.digg.com/links/No_Biocrawler_entry_for_Digg_), [3] (http://digg.com/links/The_digg.com_encyclopedia_page_is_up_for_deletion_at_Biocrawler_), and [4] (http://www.digg.com/links/Help_expand_the_Digg_wikipedia_article) This all seems highly irregular to me, kind of like urging people of one large community to raid the Biocrawler, but it suggests what is probably going on here as far as "sockpuppets" go, it may just be a whole bunch of different people from their site coming over here upon their own volition to "fix" their article about the site they are a member of. Not being familiar with Biocrawler, of course they will not be able to follow Biocrawler's conventions, since they are naive, hence the resulting protection, etc.... --Mysidia 05:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Ameriphobia

I was surprised recently to find this article was deleted and the discussion was closed. The archived delete page showed that the main reason was a lack of Google hits for the term. Yet this is incorrect. Google actually shows more results for variations of the term: 169 for Ameriphobia, 112 for Ameriphobic, 208 for Americanophobia, 333 for Americanophobe, 58 for Americanophobic, 914 for Americanphobia

That totals 1794, and that is just what google has in their cache (which is not even half of the entire internet by the way). Just checking Biocrawler's "most recent articles" page, one can easily find terms that show low Google counts:

679 for "Spanish Second Division"; 782 for "Extinct Australian animals"; 577 for "Vampire lifestyle"

Yet none of these are deleted, presumably because even if these terms themselves are not widely used, they may related to larger themes which are important or popular. I say the same goes for this article. The theme of Ameriphobia is extremely widespread and up for debate. Deletion of this article is obvious partisan and political. My guess is a lot of the Leftists who monopolize Biocrawler are intolerant of divergant political views being presented on Biocrawler, where only fringe stuff like "9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory", "9/11 conspiracy theories", and multiple pages of the like are permitted to be posted. Nice POV double standards.

In sum: 1. This term is common in college circles and among conservatives--even used in the New Yorker magazine in 2003. 2. Banning the term would be de facto POV, ie. excluding some kinds of discrimination but not others. 3. The main arguments against it were that it didn't have enough Google hits --which I proved was false, and that it was too POV. But POV topics are not forbidden on Biocrawler, just POV content. This article and any article can be presented in a NPOV way. 4. Why can't people who object to content for poliitical reasons simple edit the articles instead of automatically deleting everything??? 5. Why is crap like 911 conspiracy pages and the like 1) not considered "too POV" 2) not considered "unencyclopedic"? It's obvious that partisan political motives mean that anything that isn't anti-American enough will be banned.I don't appreciate the "when in doubt, delete" philosophy. What a waste of time and effort, and simply because of partisan political bias.Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. No, it's when in doubt, keep. That's why a "no consensus" result means Keep. VfU is not the place to express your views on why the original article should be kept; it's a place to discuss articles that were deleted out of turn. This went through a valid VfD with an overwhelming consensus to delete, and therefore it was not deleted out of turn. --Death phoenix 19:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Over whelming consensus??? You mean like the 4 or 5 "deletes" with no reasons given? Then comments like "I'm confused by your comment. If it's a common term, why shouldn't Biocrawler document it, even though its usage is POV? If it's common, how is documenting it using Biocrawler as a soapbox? ... So redirect to Anti-Americanism, which it doesn't seem to be any different in usage from.) Nickptar 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" and "Certainly the word deserves documentation. ... ---Isaac R 23:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC) " "Weak delete. ... So my feeling is, no big deal either way. Andrewa 18:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" Again, I can't find a real argument, outside of supposed (and false) Google hits. By the way, if the term is too POV, then Islamophobia should be deleted, right? Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process, see the discussion. Only one keep vote, nine deletes (including the nomination). Interestingly, at least two of the deletion votes were cast by users who are not only experienced sysops, but who in my experience adhere punctiliously to the rule of "when in doubt, keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I see nothing improper about the deletion process. --Carnildo 21:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - VfD vote was valid. - Tεx τ urε 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. It may be too early to suggest placing this article on WP:PP as an article protected against recreation, but if the identical article keeps getting recreated and speedied this would be the logical thing to consider. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. Rick K 05:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. In any case, should the entry exist, it would have to be a mere redirect to Anti-American sentiment. Rama 08:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete - it appears once again that invalid argument is being used. All of these votes merely say that the process was "valid". Yet someone yesterday acknowledged that the argument used in nominating for deletion and for the majority of the delete votes was weak -- ie. that Google hits determine if it is a real term or not. But google hits are not a legitimate criteria. So can anyone offer up a valid argument for the deletion? One problem with this supposedly "valid" process is that it is very quick. Not everyone is on Biocrawler on a daily basis. So does this mean that a one-side debate means that something is permanently deleted with no recourse if the delete process (but not the arguments) are "valid"? This process seems highly irrational, ie. logical arguments are not the basis, merely a baroque political process. In sum, I still have been unable to get an argument why it was deleted, other than not enough Google hits (which I proved is false). I sign it now Dragonlance 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~Unsigned vote from User:217.184.67.137. Anonymous votes do not get counted under the rules for undeletion. --Kiand 09:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

By the way, I tried to put Islamophobia up for VfD but it was closed without discussion. Why was Islamophobia kept ("important issue", "notable" were reasons given) yet Arab dictatorships and Ameriphobia were deleted because "too POV"? Seems like obvious political bias, ie. Lefty Wikiadmins are promoting anti-American views and rigorously deleting anything critical of anti-Americanism. It is interesting to note that the same arguments made for one deletion are summarily dismissed in the case of keeping POV articles popular with the Left! How schizophrenic, biased, arbitrary, prejudiced and irrational can you get?Dragonlance 11:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I closed the deletion debate on Islamophobia. It had overwhelming keep consensus, perhaps because "Islamophobia" is a commonly used term. "Ameriphobia" is not commonly used and was deleted as a little used, non-notable neologism. Keep deleted the Ameriphobia article as a valid VfD with reasons neologism, not notable and unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why, then, Islamophilia, is up for deletion? Islamophile get 15,000 hits. Why is Islamophobe okay, but Islamophile too POV, not encyclopedic???? Why is Arab dictatorship -- a phrase that gets 8,390 hits, deleted? It's funny, one gets the impression that anything critical of Islam or anti-Americanism is always too POV or obscure, while the craziest 911 conspiracy theories or loaded terms like Islamophobia are always keepers. Funny, isn't it. Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neologism? It has been used by Front Page Magazine (FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2001), appeared in a major American newspaper (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041004-103823-3308r.htm) and even appeared in the venerable New yorker magazine in 2003(http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/030310fa_fact)!Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted - totally valid VFD, nominator is just causing trouble in the hope of picking up support. --Kiand 11:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am objecting to systematic bias, and putting forth an argument that no one seems to be able to respond to.

1)Is it too POV? Well this page [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete) says that is not a good cause for deletion. Official Biocrawler policy. Why is that ignored?????

2)Neologism? It's not my term, but the New Yorker's, and variants of the term appeared in 1800 webpages, as well as a major newspaper. Dragonlance 11:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:POINT. Because thats what your doing, disrupting the processes of the Biocrawler solely to make a point. --Kiand 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How? I'm discussing the issue here, where I was informed by the admins I should discuss it. But I guess arguing against bias, being critical of Biocrawler and the admins just makes me a trouble maker. Such is the intolerant Wiki way.... I expected too much to think people might think critically and independently. Dragonlance 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arguing against a valid VfD and then arguing against and personally barracking individual users who vote to keep deleted is 'disruption to make a point'. --Kiand 11:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if it is a "valid VfD" according to your view, it is forbidden for anyone else to object and discuss their view? Is this Biocrawler policy? Then why have this page if such minority view points are forbidden? Dragonlance 11:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page exists to discuss articles that were deleted out of process. Ameriphobia was deleted legitimately after a valid VfD. --Kiand 11:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if a page is deleted based on false arguments and new information comes to light (eg. New Yorker article), it is forbidden to discuss it anywhere???? Is this Wikipolicy? Please point me to the Official Policy stating discussion of "valid VfD" is forbidden. Thanks. Dragonlance 11:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its not forbidden, but flogging the topic like a dead horse when its clear that theres a clear cut concensus to keep it deleted breaks WP:POINT. And thats what you're doing. --Kiand 11:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just hoping that anyone could show valid reasons for the deletion (which I wasn't present for). The two reasons given, as I have shown above, were false, ie. discussion. So far nobody has yet been able to, or even try to, give further reasons for the deletion. I guess it is silly of me to expect reasoned arguments and discussion, since that type of thing is just "disruptive" and makes one a problem user. Dragonlance 12:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, heres some reasons - its neologistic. On mention in an American magazine and a whopping 1800 websites mentioing what, one of 6 spellings - thats not enough to make it anything BUT neologistic. Its also not existed earlier than about 2003. The article that was there was also POV, not saying a better one couldn't be written; but it still wouldn't survive the notablity stage - its not notable. For the same reasons its neologistic - not enough usage of the 'word'--Kiand 12:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Small correction: Front Page mag. used it in Dec. 2001, so about 4 yrs old. Probably created post-911, just a guess.Dragonlance 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So its 3 and a half years old, and used in under 2000 pages, in ALL its forms combined. If that doesn't define neologistic and not notable, nothing does. --Kiand 12:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If 3 1/2 years is too new for Biocrawler, why all the 911 conspiracy stuff? 3 1/2 years is a fairly long time in our media culture, in fact. Dragonlance 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because they're in common usage. 'ameriphobia' -isn't- in common use. A few media references and under 2000 google hits show this.

There are around 7 times as many google hits for -me- (as a person) and I'm nowhere near notable enough for an article. I trust the Google Test. --Kiand 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is simply Google hits, then why was islamofascism (70,900 hits & widely used) deleted & redirected, while Islamophobia was kept? Seems like systematic bias, ie. anything anti-American is kept, anything critical of anti-US prejudice is automatically deleted. But I suppose I have no right to point out such obvious political bias -- the same political bias behind the VfD of Ameriphobia. If Biocrawler was NPOV, there would be a page called Phobias, listing all these terms -- homophobia, francophobia, islamophobia, and ameriphobia, etc and the arguments pro and con. Instead we have some terms deleted and others kept, per political bias of admins.

Dragonlance 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there would be no such page. "pro and con" pages are ALWAYS pov-fests, and always get VfD'ed. Accusing political bias where none exists isn't going to get you much to any support, btw. --Kiand 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - valid VfD. Axon 11:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Perfectly valid VFD. It's up to individual users whether they wish to use the Google test or not, and if so how much weight to give it. It's pretty silly to say that people's votes shouldn't have counted just because you disagree with them! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said some didn't give any reason at all. Others gave weak or ambiguous support. Ultimately only two arguments exist on that page. One is the google one and the other is NPOV. Yet Offical Biocrawler policy says the latter is no good reason to delete. Dragonlance 12:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and there's no requirement for voters to give a reason, either. It's nice to know what each voter is thinking, but there's no rule that says they must give a reason. It's also true that POV is not generally a reason to delete... if I added "George Washington is awesome!" to the George Washington article, that wouldn't get the article VfDed. However, some people will vote to delete if a topic seems inherently POV, especially if we already have an NPOV article on the same subject or a very similar one (see Anti-American sentiment). Anyway, please do not get confused by the whole "voting" thing. We aren't really "voting" in the common sense of the word, we're trying to establish consensus. It's up to the admin who closes the issue to determine whether consensus has been made to delete the article or not. In this case, I don't think that any admin could possibly look at that VfD and say "Gee, they obviously want that article to be kept." The consensus was clearly and blatantly in favour of deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Lucky Ticket Casino

What happened to my article? I created it at Lucky Ticket Casino.

It was apparently deleted as advertising. Rick K 06:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

To the anon, 67.185.106.33, who posted this query. You have the right to make a formal request for undeletion of this article, but I strongly suggest that you not bother. The article certainly looks like advertising to me.

Articles are sometimes "speedy deleted" (i.e. simply deleted by a sysop without discussion), or they may be "nominated for deletion" in which case they get a review and a discussion on the Votes for Deletion page. Yours was "speedy deleted."

Advertising is a valid reason for deletion. But, technically, it is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. So if you were to request undeletion, you would probably get a majority vote to undelete. But the article would then automatically be nominated for deletion, where it would receive an overwhelming vote for deletion as advertising.

Whatever you do, do not simply attempt to re-create the article.

People often get the idea that they can use Biocrawler as a way of promoting their product, service, or website, but this idea is mistaken. If this is what you're trying to do, don't try; it will just get you and a lot of Biocrawlerns irritated. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Nicholas Stern (Titan Eagle)

As the initial page was first suggested to be deleted on basis of noteriety, which was argued against, the second and I'm assuming effective reasoning for its deletion was that it took up the space of a former Economist which had been deleted prior to this article. The more apt title (now being free) was then pasted into by the (Titan Eagle) Nicholas Stern. As the sparse economists page has now been restored, I see no reason for the other Nicholas Stern page to be "speedily deleted" as long as the qualifier of "Titan Eagle", as he is AKA, is included in the pages title. In addition I will include a redirect for the econmists page, as was first included in the previous article and qualifier.

In regards to noteriety its hard to defend an "outsider" musician as they are typically not well known or liked by the masses, however I feel that Nicholas Stern (Titan Eagle) is a personification of outsider through his awkward machismo and obliviousness to common music style. He has been featured repeatedly in outsider literature and outsider pages including this fresh page as of last week... http://www.trickmanterry.com/slapshotrock.html

Aside from general noteriety, I've also noticed many pages being deleted on the basis of "google searches" which I find kind of ridiculous. But if there is to be such a thing, I feel its only fair to have a finite amount known to people before they post, so that before they write the article they can check beforehand to see the amount of hits, and that these hits measure up to Biocrawler standards. Aubin 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - Valid VfD vote on original article under the name "Nicholas Stern" at Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Nicholas Stern - Tεx τ urε 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which vote for the original were you talking about? The vote for noteriety or the vote for taking up the space of the economist? Aubin 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted Small number of voters, but still a perfectly valid VfD. I don't think we'll ever have a finite amount of Google hits to keep an article, as you request. For one thing, it's pretty wasy to cheat at Google. Most of the time, anything under 500 hits or so is considered pretty low. However, a high Google score does not guarantee that something will be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Then why use it as a basis? It just seems kind of strange that it can be used as validation for deletion, but if there is a standard applied to it that would require the knowledge of a google count, then that can't happen. Aside from that, I don't understand the rational behind a site for learning about things saying that if the knowledge isnt already widely known, then it can't be learned. Aubin 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Valid VfD process. Arguments such as notability are arguments for VfD, not VfU (which is only for stuff deleted out of process). --Death phoenix 02:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are some valid arguments for VfU? Because the pro-keep deletion is referencing the same arguments from VfD. Aubin 03:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See Biocrawler:Undeletion policy. Generally speaking, either the original VfD or decision to delete itself have to have been procedurally invalid; or circumstances must have substantially changed in such a way that renders the original grounds for deletion inapplicable, such that a recreation would not be at all subject to the defects complained of in the original article. Both of these reasons are construed very narrowly (especially the changed circumstances argument), and the burden of persuasion is on the one requesting undeletion. Postdlf 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Original VfD was valid, and nothing stated above undermines the conclusions of the voters as to the subject's nonnotability. The google test is used on a case-by-case basis—it is not an absolute threshold that a subject must meet. It helps to make comparisons of notability within a particular subject matter, and take some account of the attention a subject has received. I think it's particularly apt to use for musicians, because that's a subject matter that you'd expect there to be plenty of internet coverage of, through fan pages, album and concert reviews, and online sales of albums, tickets, and merchandise. A contemporary musician that has made no inroad into the WWW can't be said to have left much of a mark yet. Postdlf 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And of course a musician with no albums that weren't self-produced, and who has no more claim to fame than a review posted on a do-it-yourself website about a public access television performance, has truly left no mark. Postdlf 04:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. However if he does end up becoming more notable in the future is there a possibilty of another review? Aubin 04:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as long as he manages to meet the criteria listed at Biocrawler:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Postdlf 04:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. Anonymous User:82.123.12.13 (users only edits) has recreated the article at Nicholas Stern (musician). How blatant is that? JamesBurns 07:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 14, 2005

[edit]

List of Chinese tongs

On June 13 I moved the New York Tongs, as well as the San Francisco Tongs, from the List of street gangs onto a separate list, as explained on the page history; however it seems to have since been deleted. Although it was admittedly a scant list, of which I had thought another user with a bit more knowledge of the topic might expand it, I can't find a record of it on the Votes for deletion log. 209.213.71.78 19:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Could an admin take a look at the content? According to the deletion log, this article was deleted in 21:08, 13 Jun 2005 because: (nonsense). --Deathphoenix 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm..that's odd. It was a fairly organized list, although a bit incomplete, so I'm not sure how it could have been mistaken or confused for patent nonsence (at least as defined as random characters, etc.). 209.213.71.78 20:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was deleted (not by me) because it was simply a list of red links with no real context. --khaosworks 21:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted - "This is a world list of Chinese Tongs." then a list of 9 random names (some didn't even seem like names: "four brothers tong") - no context given. - Tεx τ urε 21:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Texture, while I certainly agree with your reasoning (particularly with someone with little knowlage of the subject), these are legitimate groups. I suppose had I been given a bit more time to expand the list I could have provided references and a more descriptive introduction. Given there are at least a few mentions of these Tongs on other articles, such as the Tong wars, Little Pete, or several entries in the Timeline of organized crime, I hadn't anticipated it being deleted so quickly. 209.213.71.78 23:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with this article was lack of reasoned content. Nothing in this list gave any context or reason for the article to exist. Might I suggest if this is your starting point that creating an article on your user page would give you time to make it into something worthwhile prior to releasing it as an article? Since there is both no context and no linkable article for each entry, this idea in progress should not be an article as it stands. - Tεx τ urε 14:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Content was:

   * New York
         o Four Brothers Tong
         o Hip Song Tong
         o Kim Lou Wi Saw Tong
         o Low Hee Tong
         o On Leong Tong

   * San Francisco
         o Bing Kong Tong
         o Jung Ying Tong
         o Suey Don Tong
         o Suey Ying Tong

All of them were red links. To an English speaker, it does sound like nonsense. Why don't you start by creating articles on each of them, and then when the links are blue, you can try again? Keep deleted for now, but I might change my mind if there are real articles. Rick K 22:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That may be true however I don't think I'm qualified to write more then a general stub. The purpose of the list, which was to differentiate from the list of street gangs, was to encourage someone who might be better suited to write on these articles. You might want to consider merging it with the main Tong article or at least revert the street gangs list in any case. I'm sorry for the trouble and thanks for the help. 209.213.71.78 23:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Thanks for the content, RickK. Some of those names sound vaguely familiar, so I wouldn't classify it as nonsense, but a bunch of red links does not an article make. If some of these articles were to be created in the future, I'd support such a list, but I would much prefer an English translation followed by the Chinese phonetics. For example (completely fictitious), Vampire Tong (Geung Si Tong). Such an entry would seem less nonsensical to the non-Chinese reader. --Deathphoenix 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel the same way, that was what I was trying to say but you said it better. :) RickK 23:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - hahaha... when I said I didn't think it was nonsense, it wasn't in reply to your comment, it was in response to the original reason for deletion. :-) --Death phoenix 19:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. Separating the tongs from other street gangs is a rather appropriate move, as the history of organized crime in China is far different from that of the random street gangs of the US. Also, while it may seem like nonsense to the casual reader due to no context, (a) To those with some background knowledge, these names are meaningful, even as red links and (b) As a 'list' article, little context should be needed beyond providing a link at the top to the primary article on the Tongs. One thing I would suggest, however, is to restrict the list to those Tongs operating in China. Random Chinese-American street toughs in a gang are a far cry from the complex and organized Tongs of Hong Kong and Shanghai. LordAmeth 15:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment While it doesn't look like this article will be kept it should probably be noted that these particular Tongs are fairly old, most involved in the Tong wars of the late 19th and early 20th century, and are certainly as notable as the Five Points street gangs. I certainly wouldn't classify these groups on the same level of a modern street gang such as The Ghost Dragons. The American equivalent of the Chinese Triads, these were highly organized and secretive organizations that carried out full scale gang wars in cities such as New York and San Francisco for well over a quarter of a century. I'd suggest moving it to the Tong wars article (although a bit more detailed). 64.12.117.10 05:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Undelete-Useful for crime prevention and awareness.--Jondel 01:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, create some of the articles first. --W(t) 01:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

[edit]

GAP Project

~~Article has 2 copy vio deletes. <s>~~

<s>First delete was wrong because the material was PD and still is. I wrote it myself but I cant proove that so nevermind the first copy vio. Or the canadian government is violating copyrights. [6] (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html)

~~I am not arguing to restore this one because..~~

~~1)I have already written the page~~

~~2)I dont care~~

The second copy vio is nothing close to the alleged page. Hence a copy vio cannot be the case. The page was declared a copy vio and was deleted in 5-10 minutes of this. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Undelete --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The version dated May 3 has direct word-for-word copies from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm, just as the copyvio boilerplate indicated. That version is nothing like http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html. There is a stub now. If you want to rewrite it in your own words, please do so. Keep deleted. RickK 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - Look I am sick of dealing with this I wrote the article with my own words from scratch and that was declared copy vio. I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd. I want the later version restored. No copy vio is the case. I dont enjoy writing same articles to be deleted without being read. COMPARE the latter version please. There are two copy vio cases. First one, I ma not discussing. Second is definately not copy vio. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Copyvio. Gamaliel 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ~~Did you compare the first or second copy vio case? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~
Comment: Can someone give a quick comparison between the two deleted versions and the two web versions? --Death phoenix 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Case withdrawn. Page was restored. Anyone can compare. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that User:Coolcat has unilaterally restored the last version that was removed as a copyvio. Should be deleted again unless copyvio case is cleared. — Davenbelle 07:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I have reverted it. Rick K 06:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- This is not the first time that Coolcat has caused trouble through his dishonest use of copyrighted material and his inability or unwillingness to communicate clearly about the issue (see this earlier discussion on my talk page for an example; the article discussed there was also one he later tried to get undeleted).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler:Votes_for_undeletion&oldid=13144800#Diagnosis:_Murder) I think we need a long-term solution for his conduct. Postdlf 15:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: on the talk page CoolCat claims original authorship of this text, implying it's a GFDL release by himself (while explaining his desire to be anonymous). Later, User:ugen64 finds some evidence that some of the text might have a U.S. Gov public domain origin. CoolCat then picks up on the PD angle.

Questions;

why doesn't Coolcat know or say that the text in question is PD until ugen64 points it out (assuming that it really is PD)?
if CoolCat really wants to remain anonymous then why does he claim authorship of text that will eventually reveal his identity?

This just doesn't make sense.

I'm also getting fed up with CoolCat's administrator shopping. Several times now various administrators have interceded with the copyright violation listing process. Or questioned me or re-evaluated past CoolCat copyright violations that I processed (Silsor, Burgundavia, Frazzydee, ugen64). When I try to find the relevant discussions between CoolCat and these administrators I can't. I certainly don't begrudge these administrator's actions, but I'd like to know what CoolCat is saying behind my back regarding these copyright violations, since it reflects on me and it keeps wasting my time, over and over and over... --Duk 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finally, CoolCat says that the second deletion as a copyright violation was not right, that it wasn't close to the noted source. Take a look a the paragraph starting with the sentence that I noted on the talk page (you need to look at the deleted page). I don't know how CoolCat can claim this isn't copied. --Duk 07:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted unless a PD source is verified, then note this source, otherwise it is plagerism. Oh, by the way, this will also reveal CoolCat's identity ;) --Duk 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Deleted unless PD source is verified. Jayjg