Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 4 September 2005 (frame|right|I have brought Toby here because he is lonely.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
I have brought Toby here because he is lonely.
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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 Wikipedia: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.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. You don't have to get the stub undeleted, and as long as your new version has content it should not be redeleted. If it is, then you should list it here.

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:

  1. People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Wikipedia 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.
  2. 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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

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.

September 3, 2005

"Babooshka"

Can the history be undeleted behind the redirect please? I want to use it for Babooshka (song). Kappa 09:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary undeletion

September 3, 2005

No jive

What was in No jive please? Kappa 09:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"No Jive? is a ska band in Connecticut founded by 2 guys in High School. The band started off by doing covers of the more populer ska bands such as Reel big fish and Streetlight Manifesto. Soon though they started to make there own songs such as a popular song called Alarm Clock.
The band was started by Ryan Briggs and Wilson Primus who have been in the band from the beginning. Wilson is also in another ska band called Kids in the Corner. Ryan Briggs started as the lead guitarist and Wilson Primus being the lead singer and alto saxophone player. They were joined by Korey Charles on the trumput and Steph Viets on Trombone, as well as Jessica Alexander on the baritone sax. Also Ryan Buckland joined them as there bass player. And last Robbie Mulcahy(a very good drummer) joined them to make there band complete. They went played at some great shows after they formed causing to them to become very well know in Manchester, CT.
Now though No Jive? has gone through some changes such as their guitarist Ryan Briggs decided to play only tenor saxophone in the band so they brought in a new guitarist Pat Thibodeau who also is there back up singer. Pat is also in Wilsons other ska band Kids in the Corner.(hes the lead guitarist and lead singer for that ska band) So far they have started to prepare some new songs."

Zoe 19:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I totally object to this. my film was deleted as irrlevanmt and unlrss that band has released an album they shoudlnot appear on wikipedia.

September 2, 2005

Jo lawry

What was in Jo lawry please? Go ahead and vote if you want... Kappa 10:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted would be my "vote". It said "Jo Lawry is on outstanding young jazz singer. Born in Adelaide in 1978, she completed her undergraduate course at Adelaide University. She was awarded a Fulbright scholarship that enable her to complete her Masters in Jazz performance at Purchase College, New York." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. I tagged this one. No assertion of notability beyond being an "outstanding" singer. Pure vanity. android79 11:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to vote since nobody has actually requested undeletion. Radiant_>|< 11:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was not actionable under CSD A7. A clear assertion that she is notable was made. This should have been sent to AfD; and I have little doubt that it will be once the cavalry arrives.—encephalon | ζ  11:27:05, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
    • Calling oneself "outstanding" is not an assertion of notability. android79 00:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep deleted was under #7 - she fails WP:MUSIC big time and can't even spell her own name. Dunc|☺ 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 1, 2005

Bike Friday

What was in Bike Friday please? Kappa 07:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Bike Friday is a bicycle company located in Eugene, Oregon that builds custom, folding bicycles. Their site is www.BikeFriday.com". Radiant_>|< 07:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising. Keep deleted unless you want to rewrite it to somehow make it meaningful. Zoe 07:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • In hindsight, it wasn't a speedy, mea culpa. If anyone wants it undeleted and VfDed post a message to my talk page. --fvw* 08:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted.—Encephalon | ζ  09:54:23, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Convert to article request.' That is, keep deleted but at the same I am putting in a request for the article. Here's why. I think a case can be made for Bike Friday being notable among bicycle companies. In the U.S., say "Folding bike" to any cyclist and they'll say "Bike Friday." They are by far the best-known maker of folding bikes. They build pricey, no-compromises bicycles that have the characteristic that people who own them all seem to love them. If someone had taken the trouble to write a good one-paragraph stub including what is notable about Bike Friday, I think it would neither have been speedied nor nominated for deletion. However, I don't want to press a technicality and suggest that the useless substub article be undeleted and VfD'ed (AfD'ed?). I think it would be irresponsible to suggest undeletion of a useless article when I personally do not intend to do any work on it myself right away. Like many substubs, I think this one should not be considered as an "articls" at all, good or bad, but as an article request made in an inappropriate way. So I will put in an article request, and if nobody gets around to it before I do, I will eventually try to write a good short article. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete as this does not seem to have been a proper speedy deleteion. Then this can be expanded or deleted in the normal course, as may seem appropriate. DES (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • The advantage of an article request, over listing on VfD, is that it records the fact that the topic has been requested without imposing any deadline, and bypassing the need for possibly contentious debate. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but an improper speedy (which the deleting admin now states this to have been) should not IMO stand regardless of the ultimate merit of the article. DES (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand, and I agree that it was not a proper speedy, and I acknowledge that I was departing from process in discussing the merits of the article. But I am willing to accept the deleting admin's mea culpa, and I don't see the value of dragging it through VfD just on the pure principle of the thing—particularly when User:Kappa did not request permanent undeletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Kappa didn't. User:DESiegel did, or at least I intented to, and i thought I made this clear. Should I have moved the thread down into the non-temporary section? Shall i now? DES (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • My position on this one is identical to Dpbsmith's. I virtually always support undeletions when the article was SD'ed "out-of-process," and try to reduce this occurence in a small way by removing inappropriate CSD tags when I find them. With a small number of articles that end up here, however, the pieces are so bad that undeleting and going through the extended AfD process seems, well, unwise. Almost as if we're indulging the bureaucracy because we can. This 2 line "article," at best, missed CSD A3 by a few keystrokes, and by any standard is a naked attempt to use WP as free advertising space. DES's position has the merit and respectability of clarity— he draws his line in the sand very clearly. I try always to do the same, but sometimes one wonders if in staring too hard at the line we fail to look up and see what we're actually dealing with. My vote remains to KD; if any of our unusually talented VfU'ers decide to re-write this, I will not oppose, but consider it on its merits. Regards—encephalon | ζ  14:29:12, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
            • The idea that it's a "naked attempt to use wikipedia as free advertising space" is implausible, it looks more like someone making a perfunctory stub to fill in a red link. Kappa 14:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, it's not at all implausible, Kappa. At a minimum it's at least as likely.—encephalon | ζ  15:00:28, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, but it Dpbsmith is correct to place it as a requested article. The original substub is essentially an external link and a Yellow Pages entry—there isn't an explanation of why the topic is notable. A history-only undeletion of the original substub could take place if someone writes at least a decent stub at some point in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted without prejudice. If it is a notable company (I don't know), then writing a decent stub should be relatively easy, and this sub-stub wouldn't be useful in writing it at all. --Titoxd 23:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for undeletion

September 4

David tunney

Pretty well known in Dublin, I feel. 86.40.6.214 00:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

Korps Nationale Reserve

The Korps Nationale Reserve article was deleted,the reason given was that the page was not in english. Might I suggest that the {{notenglish}} tag was created for this purpose, and that this is not a proper reason for speedy deletion of an article. Indeed IIRC the proposal for speedy deeltion of articles not in english was voted down. Undelete and list for transaltion, or put on AfD if content turns out not to be proper for soem otehr reason. DES (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that not being in english is not a speedy criterion, the full text of this article prior to tagging for deletion was Names B compagnie 20 Natres Bat. verwijs ik u naar www.natres.nl. My dutch is pretty poor but I think this loosely translates to "B Company of the Natres battalion can be found at www.natres.nl". That would qualify under speedy case A3, "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link..." Rossami (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Babelfish gives a translation that is functionally the same as Rossami's. I agree with the assessment that this qualified as a speedy under criteria A3. --Allen3 talk 19:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Based on this link, the proper name in English appears to be Royal Netherlands Army reserve. Several redirects would be appropriate after the article is created. As for undeletion of the original, a history-merge is a simple task after the new article is created. --Allen3 talk 22:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats

Category:Wikipedians by generation was nominated for deletion on August 18. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 18#Category:Wikipedians by generation (from Aug 18). The consensus at the moment is to keep it, by 13 to 9. Category:Teenage Wikipedians was also deleted and depopulated, apparently as part of the same nomination. As a result of these deletions, Category:Millennial Wikipedians has no parent category. dbenbenn | talk 15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete Does not appear to have had reasonable consensus for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. After being listed for seven days, there was consensus to delete Wikipedians by generation, and so it was. The discussion was kept open for the subcats which weren't tagged for deletion. As such, I'm ok with undeleting teenage wikipedians. --Kbdank71 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete (or just permit recreation, if it had no content as it appears). A substantial amount of people appear to find this useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:44, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. It was a valid deletion. The current vote count mostly is just for the subcats (which are kept). You can see the point in the discussion where Kbdank extended it for the subcats ("NOTE") and the voting is much different after that. Why not just recategorize the subcats? Dmcdevit·t 22:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Restore each category to its status pre-discussion. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, conclusion was valid. Radiant_>|< 09:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Given Kbdank71's explanation above, the CfD was valid. -Splash 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Hubbub

Template:Undelete

I submitted an article on the etymology of the word Hubbub to Wiktionary (article title, Hubbub), and I was chuffed to see it automatically converted to Wikipedia; I then found that Ambi re-converted the article - back to Wiktionary! Will it end up in limbo? Is there any place for it in Wiki-world? I'd prefer if the article appeared in W'pedia, as it involves interesting history and culture and may attract intelligent edits. Is it permissible for an etymology article to escape the cold house of W'tionary and remain in W'pedia? How should I change it to fit the frame and achieve undeletion? --shtove 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A tricky one, personally I think etymology belongs on wiktionary but if they don't want it either we need to do some work to get our policies to not leave a gap in the middle. No vote as of yet. --fvw* 00:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. A transwiki'd article is only speediable if it has been transwikied as a result of a VfD, per CSD A5. This didn't get a VfD so should be restored, and given one. -Splash 00:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content you are discussing is currently in Wiktionary (see wikt:hubbub). I can't find any record that it was ever removed from Wiktionary. The form and format of the long etymology section is not really Wiktionary standard but the content definitely is. "Dictionary entries" (as we use that term) are articles about the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase. I don't see how the mere discussion of the etymology of the word could rise beyond that standard. Wiktionary does accept these kinds of contributions and, in my experience, has highly qualified editors who can help build out the article. Leave it in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, it was certainly deleted from here. There is no process for an admin to transwiki by themselves and delete, save for WP:IAR. Often, dicdefs get the treatment at VfD and are kept. That's why it should go through a VfD first. By all means leave it at Wikt, but give it a fair go here first. -Splash 02:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You said "here is no process for an admin to transwiki by themselves and delete". Actually, that remains an unclear point. The old interpretation was that any transwiki'd article could be removed from the source Wikimedia project immediately. A transwiki was not really interpreted as a "deletion" because any editor could reverse the decision without special admin powers (by running the transwiki process in reverse). All content and attribution history is preserved within Wikimedia even if it's gone from one particular wiki-project. The people who generally favored that interpretation usually relied on the wording in the text at meta:transwiki and argued that as a meta rule, it should have precedence over the individual project rules. Now, there is certainly room to interpretation and debate even over the language on the meta page. Add the recent debate over the CSD case and the current state of the rules for post-transwiki are very uncertain. Reasonable people could argue that the "old interpretation" still applies and does provide for a process to transwiki then immediately remove from the source project. Regardless, I still feel an undelete would be somewhat pointless because I see no possibility of it surviving the VfD discussion. An etymology is clearly lexical, not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Wiktionary it, and find a suitable place to redirect the link on Wikipedia. Radiant_>|< 07:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the W'tionary link. Apart from the matter of administrators' protocols, I take issue with the lexical/encyclopaedic division: the article treats of etymology, but it does have (I think) potential to attract edits relating to early modern Protestant colonialism and nationalism. On other points: I'm sure it was originally submitted to W'tionary, although I can't see it in the history; and in the process of being reconverted to W'tionary the block quote has lost its form and the footnotes now stretch over the horizon of the screen. If I may cast a vote in my own cause, I say undelete.

Patrick Haseldine

Template:Undelete

This page was speedily deleted today at 12:29 without apparently any further comment or discussion on the talk page. It was not a re-post of the article that was Vfd'd on August 27: today's entry was a major revision, which merited more than simply a bureaucratic deletion. I should be grateful if consideration could be given to its speedy undeletion. Phase1 21:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and request There was a decision to delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Patrick Haseldine. However if the latest version was in fact significantly different from the version up for deletion, in ways that mean that the arguments made on that page might not apply, then they should not have been speedied. The discussion was generally over notability, so a new article ought to indicate reasons or evidence for notability not discussed in that debate. Mind you, that debate had 4 deelte votes and 5 keep votes, but 4 of the keeps were from users not logged in, and I presume the clsoer discounted them. Had I seenm this debate while it was live, I'm not at all sure how I would have voted. Would an admin please compare the relevent versions and let us know just how different the most recently deelted version is? DES (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The version deleted today was substantially similar to the version deleted after the VfD vote. The last non-anon VfD vote was on the 20th, and there were edits to the article on the 25. I don't see any major differences between the verison that was listed for VfD, the version that was deleted on the 26th, and the version that was deleted on the 31st. --Carnildo 22:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - As far as I can tell it is the same identical article that was voted for deletion. Further comparison shows some paraphrasing within some sentences but essentially the same content and almost in the exact same order. - Tεxτurε 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If it was substantially identical, that's good enough for me since the VfD was fine. -Splash 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and AfD. Having read both versions, I don't really think there's a whole lot between them. But the CSD has the emphasis on "substantially identical" not "substantially different", and I think the differences are enough to not quite make it, although I can understand why this was speedied. It should return to AfD however. -Splash 13:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted an interesting story and seems notable. I'm surprised it was VfDed. But I see no evidence that the deletion was improper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Speedy deletion was proper. --Titoxd 01:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Opening paragraph of latest version is new; paras 2, 3 and 4 are essentially the same as the original VfDed article; but, paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 are completely new, with plenty of factual information demonstrating notability of article's subject.Phase1 10:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, yes it's got new material, but no it's still not notable. --fvw* 10:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is clearly disagreement here about whether the new version was a recreation, or if it contains some new information, not present at the VFD debate, which establishes notability. I have therefore temporarily undeleted and protected the article. Here is the first deleted version and the second deleted version. I have not read through them, but I may vote after doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Having read the two versions, I see a crucial difference between them. The first version contained letters to newspapers, and made no real mention that he had done anything else than that: write letters with conspiracy theories and spout those theories in the media. The second version however points out that Haseldine had 1) prepared dossiers to the Lord Advocate in the Lockerbie bombing case, and 2) mentions his different political campaigns. That means that I don't think that the second version is a recreation, it should get another VFD (or AFD?) debate, and I think it has a fairly good chance of surviving it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as per Sjakkalle. I agree that there is a substantial difference between the two versions. I suspect that I would nmot have voted to VfD the first version, but that is really not relevant -- this is about process. DES (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detailed comparison from here:
    • The versions (22214278 and 21813877) detailed in this comparison are incorrect. The versions that User:Sjakkalle actually temporarily undeleted were: first deleted version [1] and second deleted version [2]. The following paragraph by paragraph comments that are based on the incorrect comparison, and which are likely to have prejudiced some keep deleted votes, must therefore also be incorrect:Phase1 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para 1 - Both indicate dismissal for disagreement over policy. Later version adds apartheid reference. (from para 4 in original)
    • Para 2 - Paraphrased and spelling corrected but content is identical for each sentence.
    • Para 3 - Paraphrased and one sentenced restated completely - content is identical.
    • Para 4+5 - These two in the original are combined into a single paragraph in new with some rephrasing - content is identical
    • Para 6-9 - The content is more different down toward the bottom but rewriting the same facts. Nothing substantive has changed about the content.
    • The above comments - based on a false comparison - should be ignored.Phase1 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paras 6-9 of the original become paras 5-8 of the new. I agree that the first sentence of the new para 5 is restated but, since the remainder of para 5, all of para 6, all of para 7 and all except the final sentence of para 8 is substantively new content compared with the VfDed version, disagree with the above comparison.Phase1 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above it is argued that the notability of the subject has been enhanced. It has not. Just because someone rewrites and paraphrases does not mean the previous VfD is no longer valid. - Tεxτurε 14:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because half the content of the new article is substantively different (not rewritten or paraphrased) from the VfDed version, and the subject's notability thereby enhanced, the case for undeletion is very much strengthened.Phase1 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that it is different. Can you make your case? What new facts did you find? What percentage of the article content is the same? I'd say about 95% or more. - Tεxτurε 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The case is well made by the Administrator above who says: "The second version however points out that Haseldine had 1) prepared dossiers to the Lord Advocate in the Lockerbie bombing case, and 2) mentions his different political campaigns. That means that I don't think the second version is a recreation..." I'd say that about 95% of paras 5-8 in the the second version is new facts. Sorry to have to disagree with you.Phase1 18:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't apologize for making good points. I don't think they change my opinion, however. The dossiers addition consists only of two sentences listing who he gave them to and his political campaigns in local politics do not increase his notability. - Tεxτurε 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is, of course, your opinion - interesting though it is. What will be more interesting is how many further undeletion votes there are - and any argumentation they adduce. Thank you for your contribution to the debate.Phase1 20:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. No substantial changes. --Carnildo 21:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, substantial enough differences that this was not a speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:05, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
  • Undelete --SPUI (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, invalid speedy. —RaD Man (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Launie Anderssohn

Template:Undelete

hello this is in accordance with laune anderssohn. i play in the band and have been playing with a notable rock band, the dears who are hugely successfull in not only north america but europe as well, playing to crowds of over 100 000 people at festivals, www.thedears.org for any info on validity. this is a notable group people, we are a band making waves and spreading rapidly, yet it seems the dears factor, the keep posts, the 2 countrieds toured, the three re cords, the 800 plus hits on google, the records in radio stations across canada dont seem to matter in the voting process even thoughwe met all the criteria for being kept. this bearcat fellow does not seem to have any notability under his belt. yet he is still on this site, we are a hard working ground breaking band that has been deleted for what i believe is more the content of our music than the actual suggested reasons. please consider us for undeletion (65.94.191.240 04:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC))thank you --65.94.191.240 04:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly clear on which article you're requesting be considered for undeletion, but being associated with a notable band doesn't automatically make your band notable. Have a look at WP:MUSIC for some reasonable guidelines on what is and isn't considered notable by many.
It should be noted that there isn't a notability requirement for working on wikipedia, or else we'd have very few contributors left. --fvw* 04:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleted Hello, 65.94.191.240. Just so you know, I voted against your article, and I've never heard your music, therefore, I, at least, wasn't voting against the content of your music, I just thought the article didn't belong in Wikipedia. I think that that's true with the other voters as well: I highly doubt that in an encyclopedia with articles on a number of extremely contentious subjects your independent band was deleted because of your songs' content. Just see the VfD and you'll immediately get other reasons. As for getting it undeleted, you might consider getting yourself a username and using grammatically correct, punctuated sentences which begin with capitals, which will almost certainly give your opinions more weight.
A (partial) case against the article as I see it:
  1. It didn't have any evidence of notability on it except for your connection to the Dears (there was no mention of any tours, although that was brought up in the VfD itself, and whether or not the Dears were notable enough was contested, including by me).
  2. From what I can see on your site, you havn't even signed a real record contract and are selling records out of a local record shop, Le Subalterne.
  3. You're not listed on Allmusic.com.
  4. The article didn't say that you toured, if you indeed did (it was mentioned in the VfD debate, however).
  5. The VfD was heavily sockpuppeted, which in and of itself isn't a case, but it didn't help one bit.
I think it speaks for itself, really. I would suggest that you read the VfD debate and stop saying that people are against you because they don't like what you have to say, accept it, get really famous, then come back here and write an article about it. But please remember that WP is not the place to advertise your band, it's an encyclopedia. --Blackcap | talk 05:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Launie Anderssohn article was deleted despite furfilling at least one, and arguably two, of the criteria on WP:MUSIC; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Launie Anderssohn. The debate centered on weather The Dears should be considered "extremely notable" or just plain "notable". What I think was ignored was that Launie Anderssohn has toured two countries, and should be considered notable on that basis. Farquard 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Valid VfD, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Valid VfD - Tεxτurε 14:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The claim that they "toured two countries" was never substantiated despite that statement being challenged early in the discussion. The closing admin was within reasonable bounds to discount that claim. Rossami (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The decision to segregate the accused "sockpuppet" comments was probably a mistake. Comments from new users may be noted as such but an overly hostile reaction to them tends to turn the discussion into a flamewar. The lesson for next time is that it might be better to quietly note the new user's contribution history and trust that the closing admin will weight the comment(s) appropriately. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep deleted, valid VfD. I agree with Rossami's comment — WP:GVFD is quite clear that all that is necessary is to tag them with "this users first edit" or some such. If I had spotted the segregation, I'd have gotten rid of it. -Splash 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Procedure was correctly followed. Denni☯ 01:39, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, process was followed correctly. It is worth noting that WP:MUSIC establishes guidelines rather than hard and fast rules—some bands or artists who meet one or two of the WP:MUSIC criteria may still be judged insufficiently notable through VfD, and I imagine that there are circumstances under which artists who fail to meet any of the criteria might still be retained. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KD per Rossami.—Encephalon | ζ  09:57:10, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

August 29

The Flowers of Romance (band 2)

Template:Undelete See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Flowers Of Romance.

I believe this should have gone through the VFD process rather than being speedily deleted outright. While the subject may be guilty of perpetrating a hoax and using Wikipedia for self-promotion, I'm not sure that made this article a candidate for speedy deletion. There were Wikipedia articles in fifty-seven languages ([3]), but note that there was at least an effort to keep the facts straight in the English version. Restore. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. We have to vote on whether or not we should keep a hoax article? This is a no brainer. Gamaliel 20:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If it's an established hoax, why waste VfD time with it? What would be achieved? There might be no CSD for it, but there is also the application of common sense. If it's not a hoax, just a nn band, then it should go to VfD. -Splash 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Agree that this is an nn issue. It is a band of questionable notability that uses falsehoods as part of its publicity. (But I'm not convinced that the band does not exist at all even if they're poseurs or liars.) This makes it an article about a hoax, but the article itself isn't necessarily a hoax. We wouldn't delete Milli Vanilli or Richard Nixon because those subjects were not forthright, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Vandalism is a valid CSD. Hoaxes are vandalism. Village Pump article cited by sysop gives more than sufficient reason for judging the article to be a hoax and nobody has seriously suggested that it isn't. It's a good judgement call by the sysop. This is just a hoax. It's not an article about a notable hoax, so let's not go down that path. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain but I disagree with the claim that this was a valid speedy-deletion. Hoaxes are a subtle form of vandalism but they are explicitly not speedy-deletion candidates. As individuals, we have a very poor track record of separating out the real hoaxes from the obscure but real topics. See here for a few examples where the nominator thought the article was a hoax but was later proven wrong. If they had been speedy-deleted, they would been lost without review. Some are such obscure topics that we might not have gotten them back and the encyclopedia would have been poorer. As a community, however, we are quite good at identifying hoaxes. That's what the full VfD process does well. The CSD case for vandalism is supposed to be restricted to obvious vandalism. Deletion as a hoax should never be done on a single opinion and does not qualify for the CSD case. Note: I am voting "abstain" because I think that the original speedy-deletion was in error but that sufficient evidence has been presented here to confirm that this is a hoax and that it would fail a full VfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, hoax, and not a notable one. Zoe 06:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Thank you, Rossami, for bringing up a number of points which have irked me in dealing with speedy and VfD. I think it needs to be made more clear (don't ask me how) what constitutes an appropriate candidate for a speedy delete and what must go to VfD. The guidelines appear to be being ignored, for the most part. As far as this item goes, I believe it should have gone to VfD, and it would have failed. Denni☯ 01:46, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
  • Undelete Hoaxes are not CSD candadites, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes and Fiction and Rossami's comments above. Let it go to VfD (or AfD or whatever the name is by the time it gets undeleted) for a full exposure. DES (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Flowers Of Romance, and this article is a recreation and as such, speediable. Radiant_>|< 07:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • This new evidence certainly changes the discussion but I'm not yet sure how. The conclusion of the prior VfD discussion was "redirect", not a straight "delete". The history of the prior version is still in place. While I would agree that the prior VfD discussion is evidence that the community did not want an independent article on this topic, I'm not sure that it strictly qualified under the speedy case. Rossami (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That vfd in fact has unanimous votes to delete (7d, 0k). So I think it's reasonable to infer that the "(band 2)" article should be kept deleted. Given its strangely spelled title I see no point in a redirect. Radiant_>|< 22:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • For clarification, you are arguing that the speedy is justified because the first VfD was incorrectly closed? Rossami (talk)
          • I have no objection to that VFD. It had an obvious consensus for the removal of the information, and that's precisely what happened (deleting, blanking and converting to redirect all mean removing the information). So logically I consider this a recreation. I have no objection to making this a redirect, but it would be a rather pointless one. The point is that 1) it has been discussed, 2) consensus wants it gone, and 3) the creator forked it anyway. Radiant_>|< 09:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

August 25

Template: Infobox SoftwareProduct

Template:Undelete

I was shocked to find the template deleted while I was continuing discussions with the individual (minghong) that requested deletion within the day of creation of the template. Minghong had made only 1 comment compared to the many I have sent for him to comment on and used the false accusation of this template being a 'fork' of his own while looking at the template itself clearly shows otherwise (both templates displayed a varying level of information in a non-repetitive format). I have yet to see any real basis to his claims and he certainly doesn't want to give any -- as shown in my comments to which he has not responded and even to his own user talk page. Within the past few days I have placed a comment in his template, Infobox Software, and still have yet to see any sort of response (in addition to several comments I have made in the previous weeks). As far as I knew at the time only Minghong was requesting it's deletion and not that it was added to a 'delete list' that someone would eventually, without any attempt at consulting both parties, would delete.

I find this quite disturbing that the article would be deleted without Minghong producing any true evidence that the template was a 'fork' of his own or even taking the time to find such evidence. Had I known that the deletion was circulated at additional places I would have made my case but I was not aware of such existence and equally due to the lack of response by Minghong himself. I would request undeletion at least until I can clearly make my case for the template. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Quadra23 20241115044526

Thank you, the purpose of the template, Template:Infobox SoftwareProduct was to show a clearer way (by usage of terminology in the template that is equated better to both development formats, essentially so that Template:Infobox Software could better apply to both closed-source and open-source applications with its detailed information. If Minghong is going to complain about 'two templates that serve similiar purposes' why then does he not complain about Template:Infobox_Software2?? Within the day of first formulation user, Minghong, had simply launched accusations with no intent of knowing if his accusations were correct or not and immediately rid any usage (when the pages it was applied to clearly had no infobox in place until I placed the box on the pages as a demonstration), and without any consultation he immediately requested deletion. Since then he has made only one comment which comes across as a form of 'hasty anger'. Nothing against Minghong himself, mind you, but the process and haste in which he 'rushed' for things to be done shows he had no intention for knowing the intent of someone else. You could say I should post a response to his template I created, and before the template was deleted I did -- and I still have no response from him.
Considering Minghong's process in this matter for a template he did not create, how much more rushed would he be if I either placed a comment in his talk box or changed the template myself (in fact, he still hasn't responded to any of my recent coments)?! Additionally he didn't give me 'due notice' as mentioned in WP:TfD for listing a TFD. I'm saddened by his display of unprofessionalism in this matter and clearly respond to say that the template I made was in no way meant to undermine his but to help improve his own. Thanks for your consideration. Quadra23 10:27, 2005 August 26 (GMT)
  • The nomination for deletion occurred on August 9th and the tag was placed on the template itself. You gave a summary of "proposed tfd holds no basis, pending discussion" on the same day indicating that you were aware of the TfD nomination. What makes you think you were not given "due notice" of the nomination for deletion? - Tεxτurε 16:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating in terms of where this 'discussion' had occured was not given notice to me and essentially he had given me no room for a discussion with him (his deletion request was on the same day he accused but he allowed no discussion, isn't that against Wikipedia policy?), have you also considered his argument of 'similiar' templates when there are already two software templates? Quadra23 10:55, August 26 (GMT)
The correct place to discuss the nomination was on TfD. Just as an article deletion is discussed on VfD. Policy doesn't require the nominator to talk to you at all. You're not making your case to the nominator but to the other voters just as you should here. - Tεxτurε 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, 2 delete and 1 keep seems reasonable to close as delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:20, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

University of Washington Police Department

Template:Undelete

  • VfD was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/University of Washington Police Department. WP:NOT a democracy. By the way Rossami is a great guy and I got nothing against him. Redwolf24 00:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and optionally tag for a merge. --SPUI (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, and I originally voted to delete the article. The reasoning given sounds like too much personal reasoning over whether the article should stay or go — that's for the VfD discussion rather than the closing admin. The reasoning implies discounting the merge vote, but even that would give 5d-3k which is a little low given that the possibly-discounted vote gave the option to interpret it as a keep. -Splash 01:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted the police dept is already mentioned in the University of Washington article in sufficient detail. --TimPope 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per TimPope; I've put a redirect here to the University of Washington. Radiant_>|< 06:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This was a difficult judgment call. I considered running it back through VfD again but I've seen very few of those turn out to be useful. In the end, I decided that it was better to make a call and risk having it reversed than to leave this article in limbo. I made the call the way I did mostly so that the decision would be consistent with other VfD decisions about local police departments (which, from what I could see, have been universally "delete" decisions). Even I felt that was not a great argument since we all know that "Wikipedia is inconsistent". By the way, my personal opinion on the article was "weak delete as redundant" which would have taken the strict votecount to 6-4. Strict votecounting, however, is bad. Whoever makes this decision should always weigh the comments much more heavily than mere "votes". Abstain. Rossami (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Seems to be a legit judgement call. Gamaliel 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. A legit call, and it would be a bad precedent to set to start second-guessing reasonable decisions. Denni☯ 00:00, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was thinking case-by-case. Plus what if some of UWPD was merged to UW? Then we'd be breaking the GFDL. My argument is that he made Wikipedia a democracy, rather than if the article should exist. Redwolf24 02:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. VfD result looks like a valid judgement call. --Carnildo 23:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

List of Japanese given names

Template:Undelete

Hello. List of Japanese given names was recently deleted by Lucky 6.9 (t c) after being transwikied without consensus. The page was placed in the transwiki queue with a minority of the VFD votes to be for transwikification. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Japanese given names. The transwiki template was quickly removed from the page and comments were made on the talk page (now not viewable) that the transwiki decision was made without consensus. However, it was not known where the transwikification queue was, and the page was eventually transwikied and deleted. When asked about the deletion of the page, Lucky 6.9 confused it with another page, indicating that this deletion was not considered in light of the above. Please consider restoring this page, it was not deleted with the proper procedure. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as per above. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid vfd. —Cryptic (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, please explain how the VFD result was valid without a consensus. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it was determined to be a transwiki by the closing administrator. —Cryptic (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that is the policy, the policy sucks. A closing admin can ignore the majority of the votes? Very undemocratic. What is the point of voting if it is ultimately up to the whim of the admin? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a very good question. The problem is that the deletion system is inherently broken and biased depending on who closes what, but we have been unable to come up with anything better. Radiant_>|< 07:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
          • Please go read the Deletion policy again. Despite the unfortunate name, "Votes for deletion" is not about "voting" at all. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Closing admins are not merely allowed but are actually required to evaluate and weigh the evidence, comments and policy when making their decision. An admin who is merely "vote-counting" is failing to do his/her job. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep deleted. Just look at the edit history: [4]. This has been created and deleted 114 times as vandalism. The total content of the last incarnation: "Brad." Of course, if someone was ready, willing and able to create a real article under this title, by all means unprotect it. For now, it's saving us wasted time leaving it locked out IMO. - Lucky 6.9 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless it's showing you something completely different from what it's showing me, it's only been recreated and redeleted twice. (And have non-administrators always been able to see deleted history via Special:Undelete/whatever links? Keen.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is news to me. Is this a new feature to Wikimedia? Lucky 6.9, sorry, it seems you were not involved in the transwiki at all. I should have directed my comments to Dmcdevit (t c). BTW, there are 100+ valid edits to an article there before some idiot came in and put "brad". Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I see 114 deleted edits and 3 deletions. Version before last deletion is nothing more than "{{nonsense}}brad" (or something like that, we cannot see the source code of deleted pages). The last two deletions are of vandalism; the first deletion is of the real content, points to the VfD as the reason, and the one who did it is not Lucky 6.9, but Dmcdevit. --cesarb 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete --SPUI (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeleted. Is this still a transwiki candidate? - Lucky 6.9 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, already. It's gone again. I refuse to get bent out of shape over this. - Lucky 6.9 22:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took me a while to work out how to go on this one. On one hand it was legitimately closed and transwikied, and WP:CSD now embraces speedying of this class of article. On the other hand the closer's discussion mentions that there was a clear keep vote. He decided to transwiki apparently because some (most?) of the keep voters mentioned this as a possibility. my instincts are that this article is perfectly encyclopedic, because I'd find it personally useful I'm going to sway in the direction of undelete and vfd. If it's really that useful it should have no problem getting enough keep votes this time. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per nominator. Based on the closer's comments (and count of the vote) it appears that transwiki was the outcome of WP:BOLD by the administrator, not the result of the voting. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:29, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • KD and replace with soft redirect, it's been clearly established (here and WP:WINAD) that articles on names should go in Wiktionary rather than here. Radiant_>|< 07:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep transwikied. I think Rossami's judgment was sound. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I'm truly sorry that it looks like this whole thing was my fault, and I only caught wind of it now, when I just left town (in a hotel computer now). Well, I agree with Rossami's assessment of a transwiki. As in, many people believe it should be at Wiktionary. A transwiki (outside of VFD) is like a merge, it can be done at the editor's discretion and with little caution. And before the new CSD (which is when it was VFD'd and and closed), there would have been no problem with closing as a "keep, no consensus, and might as well transwiki while we're at it" without any fear of ambiguity. However, that put it in the tranwiki queue, where I found it (after the new CSD). I transwikied it and, as is normal procedure, speedy deleted the article. I think I didn't read the VFD or Rossami's explanation (can't remember, but it was my fault), because it's fairly obvious that there's not really a strong delete consensus. I think that in the interest of consensus, it should be undeleted and relisted on VFD to try to find a consensus. I agree with the delete per WINAD sentiment, but I do think this was not what consensus revealed the first time. Dmcdevit·t 03:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the closer in question, I am going to abstain from voting here but I should explain that at the time this decision was made, a "transwiki" decision was a form of "keep" - just not a "keep in Wikipedia". Articles were to be transwiki'd (an action which can be done or undone by any editor without loss of attribution history) and then routinely deleted from the source Wikimedia project. We did not then have a requirement to explicitly close a decision as "transwiki and delete" from the source. Closing as "no consensus but we're still going to get it out of Wikipedia" was acceptable as long as the content and attribution history were preserved in one of the Wikimedia projects. The interpretation of transwiki has since become more confused but Dmcdevit acted in accordance with the established practice of the time. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep transwikied. Korath worded my feelings perfectly on the VFD. Transwiki. Wiktionary has an appendix for given names. —Korath (Talk) 20:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC). Our Japanese names article can link to the Wiktionary appendix. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep transwikied. As the compiler/maintainer of the largest free online collection of Japanese names on the planet (see ENAMDICT/JMNedict and WWWJDIC), I don't think there is much place in Wikipedia for a article with a selection of names. Better to have the Japanese name entry and link/point to a real collection. --JimBreen 23:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

John Eastman

Template:Undelete

The person who marked this article stub for deletion plainly has not read any Beatles biographies or histories. John Eastman was Paul McCartney's brother-in-law (Linda was his sister) and served as his co-manager with Lee Eastman (and nuisance to anyone else involved with them). John played a minor, but crucial, role in the Beatles breakup, and also in the loss of their publishing company (Northern Songs) to ATV, who later sold it (and their song copyrights) to Michael Jackson. The other Beatles pretty much hated him, John Lennon in particular, who really didn't care for either Eastman (Lee or John)'s form of schmoozing or patronisation. This hardly sounds like "not a well-known person", and if the article is deleted, this and other information cannot be added. Radsay 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe the individual may be notable, but I also believe the VFD was valid, (even though it only had 2 votes). It is on the article itself to, in some way, establish the significance of its topic. The article did not mention any tangible role that Eastman played in Beatles' history. It is acceptable to recreate an article if and only if it is substantially different than the state it was in at the time it was VFDed. A more expansive article that establishes encyclopedic merit can and perhaps should be created by someone knowledgeable about the person. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I am knowledgeable about the person, but wanted to recheck my facts before creating a "more expansive article"; the entry was deleted before I (or anyone else) had the chance to do so. I read the comments by those voters, and found them laughable in context—and have seen shorter entries on other topics that remain. John Eastman is linked to in other Beatles-related articles; I figured there ought to be something to fill that gap, while it awaited a full entry. Radsay 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, perhaps a history-only undelete. Since we have a volunteer to write a long(er) article about this person, there's no reason not to allow them access to the deleted versions of this article. android79 17:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would oppose a history-only undelete if the volunteer is going to use the content of the stub to start an article from, since that would be a violation of GFDL. If Radsay wants to create a new article, it would be better to do so from scratch. Zoe 06:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just so you know in future, Zoe, a history-only undelete can be precisely for the purpose of preserving and guaranteeing GFDL compliance. The history-only undelete restores the earlier versions of an article to its history, so that we can give credit to the authors of the original deleted article. (If there is any question about whether or not material from the old, deleted article was used in our new article, then a history-only undelete is the prudent course.) Of course, if it is the original author who also creates the new article then the question is moot; he receives credit anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I wrote the initial stub that was deleted, to follow the general format of other biographical entries; any new article would contain identical information in its opening sentence, and follow that format. As it is, I no longer know what I wrote since its deletion. Please explain this "violation", and also how a new article could avoid it and still follow format, while retaining the essential information. Radsay 06:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, okay, if you're the original creator, then I have no problem with undeletion so long as you do expand. Please realize that minimal stubs which do not claim any notability are candidates for speedy deletion, and this deletion was properly done. Undelete, so long as it is expanded in a reasonable timeframe. Zoe 06:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, new evidence of notability provided. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Original speedy was okay, just being related to famous people isn't a claim of notability. Should probably be merged with redirect to Lee Eastman, which already contains an account of the breakup and the role of Eastman, père et fils, in it. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, because Linda Eastman attended the same high school I did. She was a senior when I was a freshman, but I actually do have the yearbook from the year she graduated. Had I but known she was going to marry Paul McCartney, I would have tried harder to meet her and get her to sign the yearbook. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as above. Trollderella 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as above the above. —RaD Man (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=22509939"