Karsus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article (much better than the current one) was deleted on October 31, 2007, as a "blatant copyright infringement from the listed sources published by Wizards of the Coast." However, I distinctly remember reading the article and own the sources that were listed there (Lost Empires of Faerûn, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, The Temptation of Elminster, and The Summoning) and can verify that it was not a copyright violation. The deleted article can still be seen here. I have just reviewed it, and it is not a copyright violation. Umber Hulk (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore A blatant copyright violation deletion has to have clear unmistakable proof of it, which was never present. If the sources were print, a quotation from them proving the copyvio is necessary before one can delete via speedy. DGG (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read WP:CSD and there is certainly no mention of "if the sources were print, a quotation from them proving the copyvio is necessary before one can delete via speedy" made at all, so I'm not sure where you get that idea. If it's a copyvio it gets deleted, from a purely legal perspective we couldn't justify retaining a copyvio for such a bureaucratic reason. I don't doubt the nominator's here sincerity of belief that the article wasn't a copyvio, but I also see no evidence that the deleting admin didn't have the same level of sincerity in beleiving it was. I notice the deleting admin hasn't had this issue discussed or even notified of the deletion review, so I'll notify them now, perhaps they can shed some more light on this and perhaps provide that a quote from the source (not that'll it'll prove much since I could cut and paste a sentence from the article and say this is one example, without the source no one would be any the wiser). --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the deleting admin and I must be missing something here. There was no mention of it being a print source in the speedy nom or in my deletion. DGG is in error about a requirement to quote the print source. Might be a good idea but not relevant here as the copyvio was a website. May I suggest the person bringing this to deletion review explain what a print source has to do with anything. The article has been re-created months ago. Why are we here? I have no intention of delving into something done almost three months ago without issue. -JodyB _talk 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there maybe some confusion, the visible entry in the deletion log, says copyvios of the referenced sources, which are all print sources. The URL given is the URL to the publisher/supplier - "Wizards of the Coast", I don't think it actually contains the text of the sources. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment speedy must be only for an undoubted copyvio and unless it can be specified exactly what is being copied it is not undoubted. The only way to do this for print is a quotation--or at least a detailed page number specified. A vague assertion that it is from a given book is not "undoubted". One cannot do it from memory via speedy. Unless one has actually seen the source, it is not even a suspected copyvio, merely a suspected copy and paste. DGG (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is still missing the point. If I say that "<insert sentence cut and paste directly from article>" was copied from page <x> of the book, I can make that up very easily. You are merely trying to add some arbitary standard not in WP:CSD which the presence or absence of prove nothing. The point really is that the deleting admin should be "convinced" that it is indeed a copyvio, be that through having looked at the source (from the deletion I can't tell if they did or didn't), through an OTRS ticket (again I can't tell from looking at the deletion, they don't list it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and from a legal view point you can't justify restoring a copyvio because the deleter didn't dot an I or cross a T) or I'm sure many other means of reaching that conclusion. In this case without comment from the deleting admin, just declaring because we don't have your arbitary items it can't possibly be a speedy is a nonsense. Remeber copyright law itself doesn't recognise wikipedia, speedy deletion etc. if it's a copyvio, it shouldn't be here. I will however agree that *after* the comment from the deleting admin it does appear that the case for being a copyvio in this case is pretty weak. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Alex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Before I joined Wikipedia I understand somebody had made a page on Dark AleX, the leading Spanish PSP programmer, but that this page had been deleted. I contacted the moderator who deleted it to ask why and he said that it had been an entirely unreferenced page with little more than a "long live DAX" comment. I started a new page for Dark Alex and referenced the main reasons for which he is notable. Others had added to the page I created. I was therefore shocked to find last night that the new page had been deleted and blocked to prevent its recreation. It seems the moderator deleted it because he thought it was the same as the old Dark AleX page (which I have never seen). This is nonsense in my opinion - Dark Alex is widely heralded as the single most important person in the PSP homebrew community. This is not the place for me to list everything he has accomplished

It is such a shame that what appear to be narrow-minded moderators can delete articles without even informing the original author so that a debate could take place. I accept that the majority of wikipedia users would not have heard of Dark Alex and would be completely unaware of his accomplishments. This is to miss the point of an encyclopaedia - the vast majority of entries in ANY encyclopaedia are entirely pointless for the majority of the population, but they are there for the use and reference of the sizeable minority. To restrict content to that which everybody is already aware is to defeat the very purpose of this website. I see in the deletion discussion for the original page somebody claimed he was not famous until the BBC interview. This is nonsense - the BBC interview came as a result of his fame in PSP circles, which are much larger than just a handful of nerds.

The Dark Alex page needs to be unlocked. I hope somebody somewhere has a backup, if not I will start rewriting it if nobody else does first. Skip1337 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the deleted version looks like, but you should be aware that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark AleX decided that he doesn't meet notability concerns. If your new article addressed those concerns, you should have discussed this with the deleting admin (not moderator) first. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I did in fact contact the admin first (is a moderator different to admin on wikipedia?) and he was the one that advised me about starting a deletion review. Skip1337 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the article for a re-consideration at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Alex; I agree that it's hard to comment on the page's merits when you can't see it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this oughta' be closed, then. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W00t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ignore the blue-link-ed-ness for a second: User:Spartaz, who most recently deleted and protected the page, said in the edit history to take the page to DRV [1], and attempts to communicate with him were unsuccessful [2] [3] [4]. It's currently a soft redirect to Wiktionary. I am not proposing that this page should be an article on the term, but this page should redirect to Woot (retailer) as this is encyclopedic, a top 1500 website, and a likely search term for the website here. As a possible alternative, something to the effect of W00t can also refer to the internet store woot. could be added to the top of the now salted page. CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not-sure-what-!vote-this-is - I am personally in favor of the second of the two, since it seems more likely that if people search for w00t (with zeros) they will want the internet slang rather than the company. Looks like the page probably should stay protected, so an admin oughta' do it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Um All I did was reset the result of a DRV decision from the log of 27 Dec that endorsed the result of the earlier redirect following a request at AN for help after the redirect was userpted. If anything this might be restorable per this discussion at ANI in early January. I certainly think the correct thing is either we have an article on the word or we keep the soft nredirect to wiktionary as clearly anyone searching for w00t is looking for the word not an internet site. Not sure about the contact with me on my talk page. I'm going to check because I don't recall this at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha - I appear to have missed the comment in a talkpage redesign. My apologies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I thought this was changed from a soft-redirect due to the word being featured by Merriam-Webster a couple of months ago. That throws the original AfD practically into uselessness. It might still be deleted but needs a fair hearing. Powers ^T 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I think it is worth a new afd. DGG (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect There will be something on the page so let's see what editors do first - probably a combination of disambig and wikitionary pointer --Rumping (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bow High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No record as to why article for the high school in Bow, New Hampshire was deleted and then protected. There is no record of which administrator to contact. Articles about high schools in New Hampshire are common -- 66 out of 118 high schools in the state have articles. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have, in fact, found the administrator who deleted the page, so please disregard my comment about "no record of which administrator". My main point still stands, which is that high school articles are common, followed by my implicit point that it's not clear why this school is any less notable than the 66 schools which do have articles. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last version read "Bow High School is located in Bow, New Hampshire." I wouldn't have a problem with it being unsalted if someone planned to write an article on the school, but it's not like there's anything useful could be undeleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have never seen the original article. I had intended to put together a decent stub for the school, but was stymied by the page protection.--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt Since in all liklihood an article can be created that will sufficiently satisfy the inclusion criteria, salting this article seems quite unproductive. This is a non-controversial issue. Clearly the directory-only type listing that previously existed at this location was inappropriate, but we have to assume that an article can be easily created that can live there just fine. After all, all high schools are notable. The only issue is that not all high school articles are keepable. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt but Ken you should keep an eye on this page; the deletion log indicates it was prone to WP:BLP problems.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and overturn deletion, although I second CastAStone's concern about BLP problems. If no one keeps an eye on a slight article, I can see a justification for salting for a while. Let's open it up again if we can create something better out of it. Noroton (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC), added "overturn" to my comment to make it clearer Noroton (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with keeping an eye on it; I have all the NH high school articles on my watchlist.--Ken Gallager (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. This page should never have been speedy deleted... there's no basis in policy for that. --W.marsh 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of the speedy deletion policy does confirm what W. Marsh says here. It says that school articles are specifically exempted from speedy deletion under criteria A7, and should always instead go through an AFD. So I will therefore now add a overturn deletion to my previous unsalt !vote. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP can qualify for schools as well, Endorse Deletion but unsalt Secret ^account 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, a BLP issue is usually just a reason to revert or edit the article, rather than nuke it from orbit and require people to start from scratch (if you even let them do that). There were useful versions and content in what was deleted.--W.marsh 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn most recent deletion and unsalt. There's no basis in the speedy criteria to speedy school articles like that. Unless I'm missing something in that, there is at least one version that's good in this article. We've got oversight for the bad versions in worst-case scenarios. No idea if the deletion before that was good or bad. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - despite being a relatively new school there is already a lot to say. Five state championships in one year is pretty good and it has been the scene of a recent widely reported speech by Bill Clinton. TerriersFan (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn both deletions (although it might be best to leave the vandalized versions deleted). There do, indeed, seem to be valid non-stub versions in the history. I can sort of see Centrx's point, given that the article has, indeed, also been vandalized extensively, but deletion is not the right solution for that; anything else, up to and including permanent full protection, would be better. I believe that with some added monitoring and perhaps semiprotection, the problem ought to be adequately solved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and undelete It's clear that there is ample material available to establish notability as demonstrated by User:TerriersFan, as has been shown for almost all high schools. I will be more than happy to volunteer adding the article to my watchlist after the undelete is done. Alansohn (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Technologies Group, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The wiki entry was not only unbiased, but only only up for 2 days. It was properly marked with both a "underconstruction" and "stub" tag. It was not blatent advertising, it just did not have very many secondary references. However, it had only been two days and I was in the process of adding references when it was deleted. I was also working on other wiki entries that were related and they were only up for 1 day before being deleted. There was not enough time given to enter proper articles. I assumed that the "underconstruction" tag was intended to allow for such time to be able to add proper background information and references. This article can be fixed with further supporting information and references if alloted the time needed to properly do so. Cndbizconsultant (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Two days is more than sufficient time to do something with an "article" which had zero text in it. Hanging stub and underconstruction tags on an article don't prevent it from being deleted, especially when it's sitting out there empty. I have no problem with you actually recreating the article, providing you actually put some content into it, but off-Wiki links and infoboxes are not sufficient to produce an article. Try prose. Corvus cornix_talk 20:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:CSD#A3, which it clearly makes as well as the WP:CSD#G11. There's nothing stopping you from creating a version of the article with actual text anyways. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - assuming that the version in the cache is the same as the one deleted then it certainly is both a G3 and A7 and arguably a G11. However, rather than come here, the best way, surely is to create an informative, sourced page in user space and then move it across? BlueValour (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Piilani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The wiki entry was not only unbiased, but only only up for 2 days. It was properly marked with both a "underconstruction" and "stub" tag. It was not blatent advertising, it just did not have very many secondary references. However, it had only been two days and I was in the process of adding references when it was deleted. I was also working on other wiki entries that were related and they were only up for 1 day before being deleted. There was not enough time given to enter proper articles. I assumed that the "underconstruction" tag was intended to allow for such time to be able to add proper background information and references. This article can be fixed with further supporting information and references if alloted the time needed to properly do so. Cndbizconsultant (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. You are correct, it was not blatant advertising, it just didn't say why its subject was important. Looks pretty clear to me. Suggest you have an admin userify it for you and then expand it a little before moving it back to mainspace if you plan on recreating it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. The sourcing is rather poor and the tone is highly promotional but being CEO of what seems to be a medium sized company in a rapidly expanding market niche should probably be considered a claim at notability. I'd feel better of this went through AfD rather than being speedied A7. There is enough chance that he is notable to give it a few days. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC_aendern.jpg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

no public

• Procedurally close as void unless a better nomination statement arrives here soon. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unattached footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Correct deletion procedure was not followed: no tag was placed on the page, the authors were not notified, and the relevant wikiproject were not aware of this.

The category was a useful way of tracking a player's career, no harder to maintain than a current squad template. It was continually monitored by people from WP:FOOTBALL, particularly myself ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion Useful category, especially important during the African Nations Cup, where several players (e.g. the Guinean 'keeper) are unattached. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion.
• Procedure was not followed.
• Useful category for African Cup of Nations & for keeping player movements up to date.
• If there are objections about having this category in the mainspace it should be moved to talkspace like other non-encyclopaedic categories such as Category:place of birth missing.

-King of the NorthEast 10:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer. Indeed, it wasn't tagged and this was a procedural error. Still, I'm not seeing how a flashmob of football fans saying that the category was useful would have been of much help in the discussion. Nobody suggested it wasn't useful, what was said was that it was non-defining and ephemeral. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a kind of maintanice Category, it may be turn to a cat only for talk page, also it was not tagged in WikiProject football. Matthew_hk tc 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tangential comment Couldn't the population of a replacement category be managed by a |unattached=yes parameter in the project template? 86.21.74.40 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist due to procedural error. Not having everyone who might've wanted to !vote in the debate not able to !vote isn't a reason to restore it, since some of these editors probably would've !voted delete anyways. If you want procedure followed, then you've gotta' start the process over again. Other than that, the closure itself looks fine disregarding the procedural error. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion per all above. – PeeJay 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Yes procedures weren't followed, but alas we are not a court of law or a bureaucracy. Relisting won't produce a different result; this is a "current" category and few other than Category:Living people have been kept because it's impossible to maintain, and not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. Membership of this category is by its very nature transitory, and is not a defining criteria of the player concerned. - fchd (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and do it correctly.DGG (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm the one who nominated the category for deletion, and while I would vote delete again for the same reasons given in the initial nomination, I have no problem with relisting the category in CFD. Sorry about not following the procedure. I have to plead ignorance on that one. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Carlos. If needed for consensus, I'd be ok with a relist. --Kbdank71 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this is seen as inappropriate as a category, would listifying it be considered worthwhile? That's what I imagine I'd do if the deletion was upheld, although I'd alwayays thought that the transitory nature of the list made it easier to maintain as a category, although a list would have other advantages. Any thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, A list in WikiProject for member to work for, to search the news about them, may replace the function of a cat for talk page. Matthew_hk tc 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]