WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 – Nothing to be done here – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Charity Standish (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Grace Bennett (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Jessica Bennett (Passions) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Kay Bennett (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This debate resulted a delete; however, I re-created these deleted articles into redirects. Somehow, the deleted history logs were recovered are are recently prone to unnecessary reverts to former states. I wonder if anyone either endorse deletion or overturn to "something". Actually, these characters are non-notable for lack of significance or impact, but I should have used it in the debate. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you are saying. You didn't recreate the article, they were redirected after the deletes by me. Why does this need to go to DRV? You're trying to enforce a deletion I made? I could've enforced it for you with page protection. Are you trying to get it overturned? I dont understand what you are trying to do and you really should've discussed this with me on my talk page first so at least I could understand what you are trying to do before you drag me here.--v/r - T P 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I apologize. I never had page protection in my head. Nevertheless, I'll rephrase: "I just want a consensus about what to do with them." Maybe I'll ask for page protection if that's a better suggestion, according to you. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) Nevertheless, I did ask for history-only undeletion because someone else suggested it, otherwise. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] There was a history only undeletion done. All that needs to be done is reverted to the redirect ~~and maybe a 2 week semi-protection to prevent that IP from removing the redirect.~~ There isnt a need for a DRV.--v/r - T P 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Don't even need semi-protection since it only happened once.--v/r - T P 00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] ...Well, I just don't know what else to do other than DRV. I've already reverted to redirect before DRV. I did bring these articles to attention because some people think background about these characters should be known, including soap fans, such as IP editors; nevertheless, I don't know if DRV is necessary, in spite of failures to meet GNG and of potential to be learned, like a profile in Soapcentral.com. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: I restored the page histories (while retaining the redirects). So long as the redirects exist, the page history should remain accessible in case there is a question about the content of the page that was redirected. In particular, if some future argument arises as to whether new materials merit the existence of an article at one of these titles, editors generally will be able to see what was previously deemed deficient. Any additional information to be added at this time can be included in the list to which these titles have been redirected. bd2412 T 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Did you discuss restoring the page histories before undeleting them? Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] What would there be to discuss? I didn't restore the articles, and there were no assertions of copyvio or defamation in the edit histories, which would be the only reason not to keep them if the material is merged or the title redirected to another article. Our deletion process is directed towards articles, not edit histories of articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect are three distinct outcomes. As I wrote below, a close as redirect would have been acceptable, but you used the undelete tool to amend the AfD outcome without consulting the closing admin. I'm not positive, but I think that WP:Requests for undeletion would shy away from restoring these page histories without a specific reason. There has been no merging to List of Passions characters or Bennett and Standish families since the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Permit restoration or at least a proper merge. I wouldn't have brought this here, because our results on this sort of article are hopelessly inconsistent, but since it is here, the close was not in accord with consensus. The close was delete, but there was not one single responsible person, including the nominator, arguing for deletion rather than accepting another solution. The nom himself proposed a merge to Bennett and Standish families. The first person to comment accepted a redirect, the second accepted a redirect, but only the last, an editor whose comments I consider useless for the purpose of making rational decisions, because he has always !voted delete on everything with an identical cut and paste pseudo-rationale. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am reopening this DRV with permission from the previous closer, User talk:Elen of the Roads#Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 DRV. I would like to discuss BD2412's restoration of the page histories. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse AfD close as delete (closing statement) or delete and redirect (what was done by TParis). Keeping the history deleted would have prevented the reverts/restorations of Kay Bennett and Jessica Bennett (Passions) by 71.147.50.96. Closing as redirect with history intact would have been acceptable. I haven't seen any discussion of amending the close, but that discussion can happen here. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 – Nothing to be done here – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This debate resulted a delete; however, I re-created these deleted articles into redirects. Somehow, the deleted history logs were recovered are are recently prone to unnecessary reverts to former states. I wonder if anyone either endorse deletion or overturn to "something". Actually, these characters are non-notable for lack of significance or impact, but I should have used it in the debate. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you are saying. You didn't recreate the article, they were redirected after the deletes by me. Why does this need to go to DRV? You're trying to enforce a deletion I made? I could've enforced it for you with page protection. Are you trying to get it overturned? I dont understand what you are trying to do and you really should've discussed this with me on my talk page first so at least I could understand what you are trying to do before you drag me here.--v/r - T P 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I never had page protection in my head. Nevertheless, I'll rephrase: "I just want a consensus about what to do with them." Maybe I'll ask for page protection if that's a better suggestion, according to you. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nevertheless, I did ask for history-only undeletion because someone else suggested it, otherwise. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a history only undeletion done. All that needs to be done is reverted to the redirect ~~and maybe a 2 week semi-protection to prevent that IP from removing the redirect.~~ There isnt a need for a DRV.--v/r - T P 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Don't even need semi-protection since it only happened once.--v/r - T P 00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, I just don't know what else to do other than DRV. I've already reverted to redirect before DRV. I did bring these articles to attention because some people think background about these characters should be known, including soap fans, such as IP editors; nevertheless, I don't know if DRV is necessary, in spite of failures to meet GNG and of potential to be learned, like a profile in Soapcentral.com. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I restored the page histories (while retaining the redirects). So long as the redirects exist, the page history should remain accessible in case there is a question about the content of the page that was redirected. In particular, if some future argument arises as to whether new materials merit the existence of an article at one of these titles, editors generally will be able to see what was previously deemed deficient. Any additional information to be added at this time can be included in the list to which these titles have been redirected. bd2412 T 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss restoring the page histories before undeleting them? Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would there be to discuss? I didn't restore the articles, and there were no assertions of copyvio or defamation in the edit histories, which would be the only reason not to keep them if the material is merged or the title redirected to another article. Our deletion process is directed towards articles, not edit histories of articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect are three distinct outcomes. As I wrote below, a close as redirect would have been acceptable, but you used the undelete tool to amend the AfD outcome without consulting the closing admin. I'm not positive, but I think that WP:Requests for undeletion would shy away from restoring these page histories without a specific reason. There has been no merging to List of Passions characters or Bennett and Standish families since the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permit restoration or at least a proper merge. I wouldn't have brought this here, because our results on this sort of article are hopelessly inconsistent, but since it is here, the close was not in accord with consensus. The close was delete, but there was not one single responsible person, including the nominator, arguing for deletion rather than accepting another solution. The nom himself proposed a merge to Bennett and Standish families. The first person to comment accepted a redirect, the second accepted a redirect, but only the last, an editor whose comments I consider useless for the purpose of making rational decisions, because he has always !voted delete on everything with an identical cut and paste pseudo-rationale. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am reopening this DRV with permission from the previous closer, User talk:Elen of the Roads#Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 DRV. I would like to discuss BD2412's restoration of the page histories. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD close as delete (closing statement) or delete and redirect (what was done by TParis). Keeping the history deleted would have prevented the reverts/restorations of Kay Bennett and Jessica Bennett (Passions) by 71.147.50.96. Closing as redirect with history intact would have been acceptable. I haven't seen any discussion of amending the close, but that discussion can happen here. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Freemasons – Overturn to keep – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Freemasons (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The nominators rationale was that many entries are categorized without a reference. I very strongly agree with one of the dissenters in that discussion who pointed out that this is a WP:V issue and should be resolved through removal of the category until reference is provided, not through deletion of category. We have plenty of potentially controversial categories for people, like Category:LGBT people, and categories for similar secret group members - Category:Members of secret societies. In light of that, I see no reason to justify deletion of this category; it should be restored. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk to me} 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reading the CfD entry, much of the basis for deletion is that the cat is (potentially very) difficult to maintain. I don't do a lot with categories. Is maintenance a real reason to delete a category? I can see how hard maintenance could be, but I'd think the LGBT cats would be more of a problem. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Having read that discussion and the previous ones, I think the whole episode counts as an epic logic fail at CFD. We have a list of Freemasons, which the CFD nominator actually mentions and describes as "duplicative". However, WP:CLN explicitly allows and encourages categories that duplicate lists, so the nomination was mistaken and so was everyone who agreed with it on the basis of duplication. Such !votes should be disregarded in assessing the debate. Yes, it's wrong to add the category to a biography where the person's freemasonry is not verifiable, but how does that make it a good idea to delete the category and which policy or guideline encourages that outcome? In DRV terms the debate was closed according to the consensus so very little blame attaches to the closer, but I'd also see this as a straight overturn to keep because the CFD outcome was contra-policy and illogical, and the only basis for ignoring rules is if that improves the encyclopaedia, which this doesn't. Finally, I want to point out that although the 2007 debate was closed as "delete", that outcome wouldn't have survived DRV. I submit that there was clearly no consensus in the 2007 debate and the "delete" on that occasion was a supervote.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation That CFD does not hold up to current standards, no matter how you look at it. The stated reasons for deletion (High maintenance, duplications of lists) are clearly invalid arguments for deletion, as was pointed out in the debate itself. Yoenit (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep I have nothing to add to S Marshall's comments above. Well argued. causa sui (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] If it's recreated then as freemasonary is a part of Category:Esotericism and is viewed negatively by some then WP:BLPCAT seems to apply to its inclusion on a BLP - citable self declaration and that the membership of the group is a part of their notability. Youreallycan (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn CLN covers this eventuality. Youreallycan is correct that BLPCAT applies, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and bring it back into the right place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Relist. The close was a good reading of the discussion, but pilots raised here demonstrate that further discussion is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per above --Guerillero \| My Talk 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Membership of a secretive society can hardly be described as defining, the main criterion for categorisation (which is mentioned in the 2007 cfd). Relist it at cfd if consensus is thought to have changed. Occuli (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] overturn to keep free masons are not really a secret society anymore. Policiticians and civic types regularly advertize their membership, as well as related groups such as shiners etc. While V definately applies to any particular application, and BLPCAT as well there is no justification for not having the category to begin with. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Procedural question: If we overturn the deletion of a category, can that category be easily repopulated? I seem to recall that a bot or script of some kind has been used in the past but I'm not sure of how it's technically done.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Freemasons – Overturn to keep – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The nominators rationale was that many entries are categorized without a reference. I very strongly agree with one of the dissenters in that discussion who pointed out that this is a WP:V issue and should be resolved through removal of the category until reference is provided, not through deletion of category. We have plenty of potentially controversial categories for people, like Category:LGBT people, and categories for similar secret group members - Category:Members of secret societies. In light of that, I see no reason to justify deletion of this category; it should be restored. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the CfD entry, much of the basis for deletion is that the cat is (potentially very) difficult to maintain. I don't do a lot with categories. Is maintenance a real reason to delete a category? I can see how hard maintenance could be, but I'd think the LGBT cats would be more of a problem. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read that discussion and the previous ones, I think the whole episode counts as an epic logic fail at CFD. We have a list of Freemasons, which the CFD nominator actually mentions and describes as "duplicative". However, WP:CLN explicitly allows and encourages categories that duplicate lists, so the nomination was mistaken and so was everyone who agreed with it on the basis of duplication. Such !votes should be disregarded in assessing the debate.
Yes, it's wrong to add the category to a biography where the person's freemasonry is not verifiable, but how does that make it a good idea to delete the category and which policy or guideline encourages that outcome?
In DRV terms the debate was closed according to the consensus so very little blame attaches to the closer, but I'd also see this as a straight overturn to keep because the CFD outcome was contra-policy and illogical, and the only basis for ignoring rules is if that improves the encyclopaedia, which this doesn't.
Finally, I want to point out that although the 2007 debate was closed as "delete", that outcome wouldn't have survived DRV. I submit that there was clearly no consensus in the 2007 debate and the "delete" on that occasion was a supervote.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation That CFD does not hold up to current standards, no matter how you look at it. The stated reasons for deletion (High maintenance, duplications of lists) are clearly invalid arguments for deletion, as was pointed out in the debate itself. Yoenit (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep I have nothing to add to S Marshall's comments above. Well argued. causa sui (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's recreated then as freemasonary is a part of Category:Esotericism and is viewed negatively by some then WP:BLPCAT seems to apply to its inclusion on a BLP - citable self declaration and that the membership of the group is a part of their notability. Youreallycan (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn CLN covers this eventuality. Youreallycan is correct that BLPCAT applies, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and bring it back into the right place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The close was a good reading of the discussion, but pilots raised here demonstrate that further discussion is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Membership of a secretive society can hardly be described as defining, the main criterion for categorisation (which is mentioned in the 2007 cfd). Relist it at cfd if consensus is thought to have changed. Occuli (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep free masons are not really a secret society anymore. Policiticians and civic types regularly advertize their membership, as well as related groups such as shiners etc. While V definately applies to any particular application, and BLPCAT as well there is no justification for not having the category to begin with. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question: If we overturn the deletion of a category, can that category be easily repopulated? I seem to recall that a bot or script of some kind has been used in the past but I'm not sure of how it's technically done.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Laura_Ramsey – Deletion endorsed; userfied – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Laura_Ramsey (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Notable actress, 22 roles in well-received and well-known movies and television shows JesseRafe (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Ramsey (2nd nomination). ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review Endorse - the consensus in the AfD was pretty clear, and the last version of the article only had one source (her entry on the IMDb). If you have any further sources which would be sufficient enough to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or any specific guildeines, please feel free to begin developing an article in your userspace. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse what? Deletion or restoration? There are plenty of sources about her. 22 roles is not non-notable. In addition look at how many pages link to what should be her article. I can't see what the original article looked like, but perhaps if someone took the time to gather the sources and make the page look right, it should stick (like I was planning to do today when I noticed she was a red link on Kill the Irishman, which surprised me given how many shows and movies she's been on). JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - is a standard comment in deletion reviews - it means - endorse the closing admins decision. Youreallycan (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] What decision? The only comments were mine and the person who said "Endorse".JesseRafe (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] That would be, endorse the last deletion decision. - Saying that, if someone was to write a decent article about her, judging by her google returns she may well have a degree of wikipedia notability, but saying that imo wouldn't "overturn" the last deletion discussion decision. Just to clarify, my comments are just general and I have not investigated this specic case enough to make a judgment one way or the other. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Right, that's what I'm trying to do. I'd've been done with a serviceable, notable article three hours ago if this page weren't locked from editing. A decent sourced article is easy given how many roles she's had and news results. JesseRafe (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I would suggest you ask the last deleting admin, User:Causa sui to userfy the previous for you and then add your content and if it is demonstrably improved/different/well referenced in comparison to the previous version I don't see anyone likely objecting to you replacing it back to main space. WP:Deletion review is not really for that kind of article improvement editing. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I did post a message with that user. I have no idea what the previous version looked like, but like I said, starting from scratch with an infobox and a couple of charts for TV and Film work, all wikilinked and referenced, should only take a couple of minutes, and her name is red-linked on quite a few articles already, so it wouldn't be an orphaned article. So I was looking for "article improvement editing", but for the ban on creation of the article to be lifted, so that it can stand on its own mettle. Yes, the admin has now returned to editing so .. If you let the deleting admin know your intentions for article improvement they might just undelete it for you on request. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] So is that admin the only one who can unlock the article? I thought this was the appropriate forum to discuss the topic about the block on the article on the whole rather than just appeal to one person's choice. I'm only asking again because it's been over 8 hours since I posted this here and left a message on that admin's talk page and posted on the article's talk page, would've thought it'd've reached someone's attention by now... JesseRafe (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, I am not sure about the reason it's not able to be recreated as I can't see any WP:SALT in the logs - perhaps it's just the multiple recreations - anyway - yes - my advice is to go back and talk to the admin that took the last deletion decision. Youreallycan (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It was salted by AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) because it has been repeatedly recreated. I will userfy it on request. My talk page would be the best place to ask for a userfy since I don't get notifications of new messages here. causa sui (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] note - the article has been recreated by User:Jesserafe - that seems a bit out of process to me. Youreallycan (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I reverted to DGG and protected it. Per the template DGG left, the undeletion was temporary to facilitate this DRV, not to restore the article permanently or permit additional editing. I'll leave a message on DGG's talk page asking him to weigh in on that point here. causa sui (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] causa sua was quite right; that was what I intended, & I thank them for it. Any admin who sees the like should do similarly--no need to ask me. . I often restore for discussion when BLP problems or copyvio isn't in question & this almost never happens; if people think I should routinely protect, I can do it, but it's rarely been necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Thanks. I had a bit of a look at the recreated article and clicked on a couple of the externals and found only a front page and a another link were it didn't seem to be specifically about her , perhaps was there somewhere but I couldn't see it immediately. I am endorsing the consensus in the AfD and the admins deletion. As Causa Sui has said, he will userfy it on request, where it can be developed and consideration given to replacing it after improvement. Youreallycan (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the externals were not of note -- mere fan sites, but did you check the references? I'm confused why this was speedily deleted and couldn't be judged on its own merits, and not those of its prior iterations which were deleted.JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Question - I thought the whole purpose was to recreate the article? My new version was fuller than the one deleted previously, and it had multiple outside references. Can it please be restored and put to a vote as its own stand alone topic whether its due for deletion or not, rather than a speedy delete without due process as happened here? The various top tier publications (say what you will about quality of content, but Maxim etc are certainly well known) that gave her write-ups are surely of note. JesseRafe (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The purpose of DR is not to recreate the article, it's more of a discussion about if the deletion was correct. Why don't you just ask the admin to userfy it for you and then improve it in your userspace and ask if it's improved to a standard to replace. Youreallycan (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] OK, I'm confused I guess. I thought we were starting from scratch. I posted here because the article was blocked from being created. I've started quite a few articles from nothing in my time, and about 80% of them were immediately nominated for deletion once I hit 'save page' the first time, but of those, all survived with some more time and references added. That's the only process I'm familiar with and I don't know why it hasn't happened here. As I said, I had no idea what the previous version looked like, so I asked that the ban on its creation be lifted and I translated the page from the French Wiki (and, c'mon, she's notable enough to have pages in Viet Namese and Finnish even! ;)) and added references and wikilinks into a new article. What else could be discussed here if I didn't do that? Only a select few had seen it before and since it was blocked from creation, even its article history was inaccessible. So while the previous deletion was voted and settled, I understand that, but I did not recreate the article, I made a new one -- it doesn't make sense that my new article should be deleted just because a previous one was deleted. Shouldn't it be discussed on its own merits? JesseRafe (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Its just a bit of wiki process. The article title as you were told here is protected due to repeated recreations of a poor article and has only been relaxed for this "deletion review" - If you are cut and copy pasting a page from another wiki then you may need to apply WP:Attribution. Youreallycan (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I didn't -- as can be seen from a brief glance at the two (even if you don't know French). I took that only as a base, but then filled it in with a fair amount of research from those 4 or 5 outside reputable sources (not the fansites in External Links, but all the magazine articles and interviews in the References), so it has a lot more content than the French wiki and a lot of the French wiki stuff I cut out. What my main point is that the previous creations may have been poor articles - I don't know - but, in my opinion this one was not. And it does not appear that it was looked at on its own at all. Just deleted because it was deleted before. It's kinda a Catch-22. You say we're supposed to discuss it here, but who's gonna discuss something that was (maybe rightfully?) deleted a month ago? And if nobody wants to reinstate a poor article (of course not!), why can we not examine and talk about a good article? Why do they have to be tied together? Why can't the new iteration be looked at de novo and judged for what it is, not hindered because it shares a name with a previously existing poor article. JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It just the way it is dude. I suggest you take the easy route and rather than all this typing and discussion - just ask the admin to userfy it, and get on with improving it a bit and ask him if he agrees it's been improved enough for replacement. Youreallycan (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've userfied the article per his request on my talk page. More details at User Talk:causa sui. causa sui (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just a note that someone created a new article on this person on 7 January. I've tagged it for a G4 speedy deletion—it's not an exact copy of the previous article, but it's completely unsourced and doesn't address the reason for deletion. Some admin might want to consider resalting the title until the userfied version is made acceptable (if it ever is). Deor (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Laura_Ramsey – Deletion endorsed; userfied – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Notable actress, 22 roles in well-received and well-known movies and television shows JesseRafe (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Ramsey (2nd nomination). ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
Endorse - the consensus in the AfD was pretty clear, and the last version of the article only had one source (her entry on the IMDb). If you have any further sources which would be sufficient enough to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or any specific guildeines, please feel free to begin developing an article in your userspace. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse what? Deletion or restoration? There are plenty of sources about her. 22 roles is not non-notable. In addition look at how many pages link to what should be her article. I can't see what the original article looked like, but perhaps if someone took the time to gather the sources and make the page look right, it should stick (like I was planning to do today when I noticed she was a red link on Kill the Irishman, which surprised me given how many shows and movies she's been on). JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - is a standard comment in deletion reviews - it means - endorse the closing admins decision. Youreallycan (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What decision? The only comments were mine and the person who said "Endorse".JesseRafe (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be, endorse the last deletion decision. - Saying that, if someone was to write a decent article about her, judging by her google returns she may well have a degree of wikipedia notability, but saying that imo wouldn't "overturn" the last deletion discussion decision. Just to clarify, my comments are just general and I have not investigated this specic case enough to make a judgment one way or the other. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I'm trying to do. I'd've been done with a serviceable, notable article three hours ago if this page weren't locked from editing. A decent sourced article is easy given how many roles she's had and news results. JesseRafe (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you ask the last deleting admin, User:Causa sui to userfy the previous for you and then add your content and if it is demonstrably improved/different/well referenced in comparison to the previous version I don't see anyone likely objecting to you replacing it back to main space. WP:Deletion review is not really for that kind of article improvement editing. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did post a message with that user. I have no idea what the previous version looked like, but like I said, starting from scratch with an infobox and a couple of charts for TV and Film work, all wikilinked and referenced, should only take a couple of minutes, and her name is red-linked on quite a few articles already, so it wouldn't be an orphaned article. So I was looking for "article improvement editing", but for the ban on creation of the article to be lifted, so that it can stand on its own mettle.

Yes, the admin has now returned to editing so .. If you let the deleting admin know your intentions for article improvement they might just undelete it for you on request. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is that admin the only one who can unlock the article? I thought this was the appropriate forum to discuss the topic about the block on the article on the whole rather than just appeal to one person's choice. I'm only asking again because it's been over 8 hours since I posted this here and left a message on that admin's talk page and posted on the article's talk page, would've thought it'd've reached someone's attention by now... JesseRafe (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure about the reason it's not able to be recreated as I can't see any WP:SALT in the logs - perhaps it's just the multiple recreations - anyway - yes - my advice is to go back and talk to the admin that took the last deletion decision. Youreallycan (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted by AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) because it has been repeatedly recreated. I will userfy it on request. My talk page would be the best place to ask for a userfy since I don't get notifications of new messages here. causa sui (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note - the article has been recreated by User:Jesserafe - that seems a bit out of process to me. Youreallycan (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to DGG and protected it. Per the template DGG left, the undeletion was temporary to facilitate this DRV, not to restore the article permanently or permit additional editing. I'll leave a message on DGG's talk page asking him to weigh in on that point here. causa sui (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

causa sua was quite right; that was what I intended, & I thank them for it. Any admin who sees the like should do similarly--no need to ask me. . I often restore for discussion when BLP problems or copyvio isn't in question & this almost never happens; if people think I should routinely protect, I can do it, but it's rarely been necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Thanks. I had a bit of a look at the recreated article and clicked on a couple of the externals and found only a front page and a another link were it didn't seem to be specifically about her , perhaps was there somewhere but I couldn't see it immediately. I am endorsing the consensus in the AfD and the admins deletion. As Causa Sui has said, he will userfy it on request, where it can be developed and consideration given to replacing it after improvement. Youreallycan (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the externals were not of note -- mere fan sites, but did you check the references? I'm confused why this was speedily deleted and couldn't be judged on its own merits, and not those of its prior iterations which were deleted.JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I thought the whole purpose was to recreate the article? My new version was fuller than the one deleted previously, and it had multiple outside references. Can it please be restored and put to a vote as its own stand alone topic whether its due for deletion or not, rather than a speedy delete without due process as happened here? The various top tier publications (say what you will about quality of content, but Maxim etc are certainly well known) that gave her write-ups are surely of note. JesseRafe (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of DR is not to recreate the article, it's more of a discussion about if the deletion was correct. Why don't you just ask the admin to userfy it for you and then improve it in your userspace and ask if it's improved to a standard to replace. Youreallycan (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm confused I guess. I thought we were starting from scratch. I posted here because the article was blocked from being created. I've started quite a few articles from nothing in my time, and about 80% of them were immediately nominated for deletion once I hit 'save page' the first time, but of those, all survived with some more time and references added. That's the only process I'm familiar with and I don't know why it hasn't happened here. As I said, I had no idea what the previous version looked like, so I asked that the ban on its creation be lifted and I translated the page from the French Wiki (and, c'mon, she's notable enough to have pages in Viet Namese and Finnish even! ;)) and added references and wikilinks into a new article. What else could be discussed here if I didn't do that? Only a select few had seen it before and since it was blocked from creation, even its article history was inaccessible. So while the previous deletion was voted and settled, I understand that, but I did not recreate the article, I made a new one -- it doesn't make sense that my new article should be deleted just because a previous one was deleted. Shouldn't it be discussed on its own merits? JesseRafe (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a bit of wiki process. The article title as you were told here is protected due to repeated recreations of a poor article and has only been relaxed for this "deletion review" - If you are cut and copy pasting a page from another wiki then you may need to apply WP:Attribution. Youreallycan (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't -- as can be seen from a brief glance at the two (even if you don't know French). I took that only as a base, but then filled it in with a fair amount of research from those 4 or 5 outside reputable sources (not the fansites in External Links, but all the magazine articles and interviews in the References), so it has a lot more content than the French wiki and a lot of the French wiki stuff I cut out. What my main point is that the previous creations may have been poor articles - I don't know - but, in my opinion this one was not. And it does not appear that it was looked at on its own at all. Just deleted because it was deleted before. It's kinda a Catch-22. You say we're supposed to discuss it here, but who's gonna discuss something that was (maybe rightfully?) deleted a month ago? And if nobody wants to reinstate a poor article (of course not!), why can we not examine and talk about a good article? Why do they have to be tied together? Why can't the new iteration be looked at de novo and judged for what it is, not hindered because it shares a name with a previously existing poor article. JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just the way it is dude. I suggest you take the easy route and rather than all this typing and discussion - just ask the admin to userfy it, and get on with improving it a bit and ask him if he agrees it's been improved enough for replacement. Youreallycan (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've userfied the article per his request on my talk page. More details at User Talk:causa sui. causa sui (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that someone created a new article on this person on 7 January. I've tagged it for a G4 speedy deletion—it's not an exact copy of the previous article, but it's completely unsourced and doesn't address the reason for deletion. Some admin might want to consider resalting the title until the userfied version is made acceptable (if it ever is). Deor (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.