I've closed the above DRV early in light of the overwhelming consensus. Thing is, I'm largely bot-illiterate, and I'm not keen of de-tagging 700 categories by hand. I'm hoping someone will pick up on this task organically, but where can I go to make the request. (I ask you because it has been established that you know everything, :) and you concur in the result here) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I will see if I can do it this evening, if I am able to get my autowikibrowser functioning (it stopped working after the last update). Otherwise, I would think anyone with a bot could put the task in their queue. Also, I fixed the heading there. Cheers! bd2412T 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
How to locate the discussion of deletion of an articleedit
Dear editor bd2412: I have noticed that an article called Shaun Kranish has been deleted. I have looked and looked, but I can't seem to find a way to locate the record of the discussion, if any, of the deletion of the article. (It was a bio of a living person, and probably should have been deleted as only marginally notable, in my view.) I think the deletion must have occurred in the past few weeks, but although I had the article bookmarked I never caught any warning that it would be deleted.
Can you help me find the discussion (if any) of the deletion of the article? Yours, Famspear 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the deletion log, it was canned at 08:55 on 11 November 2007 by Jeffrey O. GustafsonTalk, with the summary "completely unsourced, claims of notability not established". There was no discussion preceding deletion. I can restore it if you'd like, but you should be prepared to immediately correct those deficiencies or it may be deleted again. Let me know. Cheers! bd2412T 04:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You gave your recommendation when the article was proposed for deletion, so I thought you might like to weigh in on the AfD. --JJLatWiki (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to Speedily Delete the above Category because the articles that were there are better described as Category:Christian radio stations in the United States which is where they are now. I would like it Speedily Deleted before more articles are added. What should I do? Kathleen.wright5 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with this being a speedy deletion case - are there no religious radio stations in the U.S. that focus on a different religion? It seems like a meta-category into which Category:Christian radio stations in the United States should be placed. However, if you would like to bring this to the community for discussion, you can nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Cheers! bd2412T 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now added the last edit dates and AfD links (where applicable) to these userpages. The list now seems a lot more more organised, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ed didn't request that this one be deleted (or, at least, he didn't put the author-request template on the page). The ones that were speedied were by author request. bd2412T 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya... that image you uploaded of Marina Orlova (File:Marina Orlova.JPG) - how did you get it? If it was an email from someone, can you kick it along to Permissions so the version which is on Commons can be tagged for OTRS purposes? Tabercil (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey BD2412, congratulations on having your article pass the VfD process with a Keep. Good luck with the rest of your articles, and I look forward to reading them.
Just to let you know, even when the consensus appears to be Keep, you should wait until we have finished the VfD process before you remove the boilerplate text stating the article is up for VfD (you can, of course, continue to work on the article during the VfD process, as long as you keep the boilerplate text up). I know that sometimes it seems that the VfD process takes a long time to complete, but if you have a look at the old VfD articles, you can see that we have a huge backlog.
Thanks. :-) --Deathphoenix 03:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Given that the article is now about the pre-existing DC character who was mentioned in the Powerpuff Girls episode, rather than about the PPG reference itself, can I convince you to change your vote? DS 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just read that article that you wanted me to expand, and I think it is already expanded now. It is just as complex as the magic sword article that was originally a microstub. --SuperDude 04:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, please do not delete the Slut Girl page, it is a very good comic book, and everyone I know who has read it thinks it's great (and everyone I know has read it). Brjatlick 22:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I saw that you added some names to the List of Papabili in the 2005 Conclave,specifically Cardinal Turkson,who was the subject of discussion on the talk page for the Papal conclave, 2005 article as to why he had been put on the list that was then in that article before being separated out. As a search determined no evidence of anyone outside the Wikipedia article itself considering that he was Papabile,he was removed. I don't see what is gained by having him back on the list and have removed him (also from the "Possible successors to Pope John Paul II" category).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I copied the name from the category to the list because the category was nominated for deletion, and some persons were concerned about the possible loss of information. I equated "possible successor" with Papabili, so I assumed that everyone in the category belonged on the list - if Cardinal Turkson belongs on neither, that's beyond the scope of my knowledge. -- 8^DBD2412gab 20:51, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I've closed this discussion as it seems to have reached a consensual conclusion. Please take a look at the conclusion and note (on the talk page) if you agree with its consensuality. Yours, Radiant_* 10:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Your comment "Keep. K-12's are inherently notable because the entire maturation experience occurs there for some." in VfD:Cairns Christian College was some badly needed humor! Thanks! With that kind of wit, I'm sure you'll make a good attorney. Although I've think I've been keeping my cool over the whole daily VfD spamming incidents, I know I needed some humor to take some stress off underneath the surface. ...if only you'd posted your comments in a K-8 article instead... (it would have still been true!) :) --Unfocused 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The policy is completely screwed up regarding rewrites and revotes. That is: it seems there is no official way for calling for a revote or for discounting or redoing old votes. I ran into the same problem with List of incidents famously considered great blunders (still on vfd). The article was totally rewritten.... so I asked for a revote, thinking that a revote only made sense, and people started screaming at me "No no! I voted already!" A big mess.
The vfd process needs to be revised. I *have* made a proposal for a sensible method of called a revote, if you are interested: Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd. But note that this is JUST A PROPOSAL. It is not policy. (Yet.) Do not use this unofficial proposal to call a revote.
The entire VfD policy is royally screwed, and needs to be revised. Currently, by precedent, apparently articles may be deleted (or included) based on popular vote. Votes that lack any reason are counted as legitimate votes. These votes should be discounted and ignored. The VfD system, like the ArbCom system, should preserve anonymity so that biases towards specific users does not affect the decision-making process. If I were employed by Wales, I'd reform many Wikipedia policies to maximize the effect of improving Wikipedia. Most people don't realize it, and some veterans are oblivious to it, but Wikipedia is in really bad shape governmentally. Adraeus 06:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Voted. Brosnan, as you might expect from my user name, is on my watchlist so I took care of that crap as soon as I saw it :) K1Bond007 21:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! This discussion has drawn to a close, so I've archived it and put up conclusions. Could you please look at them and indicate on the talk page if you find them acceptable by consensus? Thanks. Radiant_* 12:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say Wikipedia:disambiguation is somewhat opposed, but I don't think anybody would mind if it's just a couple of lines. As long as it isn't a lengthy thesis :) Radiant_* 08:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the new Lee Harris article is apparently about a different person; the first one was about a teenage musician. Thanks for checking up on it, though. CDC(talk) 17:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See discussion under Vfd (June 9th)... the three step nomination for deletion seems to have gone astray. Current page shows Wikipedia votes for deletion\Drum Wrench twice. Both times in RED, indicating to me that the Subst|vfd process went awry when I tried to nominate Drum Wrench article. Don't know how to get an Duty Administrator to see, but the second step seemed to work fine. Sorry for the hassle, but I've followed some of your comments and see from your user page you probably know what's what. Thanks. Frank Fabartus 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the above, neither time did they show in the TOC. The first was appended to another vFd line. Both the page and the Vfd Vote Sub-page seem to be correct as of a recheck. Thus, only the Vfd Log would need attention???
Thanks for checking... can you hook me up with a Wikipedian that's into or been primarily active in history? I could use a little email coaching on some issues I've running across. I'm primarily expanding articles in and around or related in some way to the Russo-Japanese War at the moment, and some of the language stuff is giving me grief. Worse, while I can infer an error in some cases (compare my version of Dalian to history), I'm not always sure of the best way to proceed. The biggest problem is that either Wiki or the Modern (PC) naming convention seems to want to leave 'old fashioned' names behind, despite the fact that all older source material uses it (e.g. Peiking, not 'Beijing'). Take a look at Manchurian Railway I wrote to fill a need ... note the reference to the Chinese Eastern Railway. I suspect they are substansially the same tracks, written in Modernese and Historicalese, as it were. But Modernese is severing itself from its own History, as it were. Has there been any discussion of this in standards and practices? Fabartus 03:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that thought and the speedy response - it's too logical for me to have thought of. Esp. at the hour I wrote! I don't quite have the WikiHeirarchy down pat, and more often than not, I've been doing ad hoc changes on the fly when I see something that goes contrary to knowledge, or needs expansion, or is Link to something not even stubbed out. I've been looking at history pages more the last couple of wikidaze, so that's a good thought... probably would have thunk it meself, but the naval Battles of the Russo-Japanese war were mostly all (impression) Anom source - and probably a translation to boot (again, impression). Is there a definite corralation to the type of 'watcher' editor, and the area of expertise? (i.e. someone has come in with adds after such as spelling fixes, categories, et al. Mostly, stuff I've expanded so far has been changed only in niggles. One party did place an attention tag in a chemistry stub I did, but then it was a fair start for all that I was digging deep into knowledge studied 25+ years ago!) I know things are 'Patroled', but I have no sense of how well and/or the experience and experise of the Patroling parties... Perhaps it's an age thing - a lot of contributors seem to be young enough to be my issue (IIRC, yourself). <G>
What's the diff between a 'User', 'Editor', '?????', 'Administrator', et al?
Legally, what's the status of a pic or map in a book published before WW-II?
Lastly, can you direct me to procedure to request pictures?
Thanks again. Frank Fabartus 13:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problem, I was just trying to tidy things up and didn't realize we were still waiting for the delete. I'll put a real article (or at least a stub) up once that happens. Thanks for the heads-up. --PolPotPie 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I didn't even think to check the edit history. Well, let's revert it and put the VfD header back on and discuss that version. I'll do that. RickK 20:58, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I appreciate your efforts on the Abortion article, but I don't think that the new article is the way to go. I have listed it on VfD[1], but it is nothing personal.--Tznkai 14:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I read your comment on the talk page of the vote for deletion, and I was wondering what is the name of the parody by Tenacious D of toxicity?Yuber(talk) 01:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While I respect your reasons for voting to keep this article, I would note that I have been unable to find anything on Google that verifies that the subject of the article was ever actually on the ballot for the position for which the article claims him to have been a candidate, nor that he received even a single vote. I note also that the website linked from the article says "Tim Smith for Governor". -- BD2412talk 03:10, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
I've checked there and at the WA SecState's site, and couldn't find Smith. I have changed my vote accordingly. -- Jonel | Speak 03:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I don't disagree with your closing this VFD, but could you please reword your reasons for doing so? We've had a lengthy debate a couple months ago over "closing all nominations that don't include a valid reason" and it's a rather confusing matter since not everybody agrees on what would be a valid reason, nor do people agree whether the reasons listed at the deletion policy are all-inclusive. Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
How about something like "Wikipedia is NPOV and therefore does not censor articles at the behest of their subject?" The request for deletion was entirely invalid. Reason I'm asking is that Klonimus did something similar a while ago (to the extent that he closed a VfD early on grounds that the nomination was invalid) and I reverted him. Radiant_>|< 23:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you'd remove the cricket matches you are listing on VfD from VfD. They are part of a series of articles covering the whole of the 2005 English cricket season (look on this page to see what the Cricket WikiProject is doing). Clearly it is inappropriate to miss out some games (and equally clearly inappropriate to delete the whole project). Kind regards, jguk 28 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
What you are suggesting would entail the deletion of many many articles representing days and days of hard work by a small group of editors (mostly Sam and myself). Before embarking on the project, I considered carefully how best to present the information and chose what is the easiest and most straightforward way. I don't really see the problem in keeping them anyway - Wikipedia is not paper - we already have articles on every single Star Trek episode and many individual episodes of other matches. Kind regards, jguk 28 June 2005 21:57 (UTC)
All the games are championship games: they are first-class, List A and official Twenty20 matches. What you are proposing is effectively the deletion of all of our somewhat extensive coverage of the 2005 English cricket season. It's not a few paragraphs that took 10 or 15 minutes to write - it is literally days and days of work. That is not reasonable, jguk 28 June 2005 22:19 (UTC)
My two varsity awards this year are very notable. Where are your varsity awards?
-Christopher Capozzoli
You're welcome to start a user account and put your bio on your user page, but we simply can't give an article to every person on the planet who won some varsity awards - we're writing an encyclopedia here, and we have guidelines for biographical articles (see WP:BIO). Concededly, the only athletic honor I ever merited was a swimming medal in junior high. However, I was student government president at one of the largest universities in the country, I have artwork in the collection of a significant public museum, was a founding member of the law school that was opened there, and graduated second in my class from that law school - and I am quite certain that I do not merit an article. -- BD2412talk June 30, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my article has been pegged for deletion. I tried to make it as unbiased and objective as possible. I would like to re-write it if it means I can keep the article up, because I would like to have people read about it without necessarily promoting it overtly.
I notice there are articles for the other major and third parties, so I see no objective reason why my article cannot remain.
But if you can offer some suggestions as to how to rewrite it, I am welcome to them. This is my first submission to Wikipedia. I am not trying to spam, but I do want to get the information out there.
E-mail me if you like at jj4sad6@yahoo.com
Thanks in advance.
Moved part of your discussion on the Cricket match VfDedit
Thanks for that. It was certainly interfering with the comprehensibility of the page. --Ngb 30 June 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Hi there! I've rewritten the article Lie in repose, and thought I would let you know. If your vote changes as a result of the rewrite, you can go here to switch it. Best wishes, regardless of your decision.--Scimitar 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)
Indeed - vote changed per rewrite. -- BD2412talk July 1, 2005 19:03 (UTC)
I will withhold changing my vote until the last sentence of this article is translated into comprehensible English. At this point, I have no idea what he actually won, and Google is of little help in adding light (or I'd have repaired it myself). If his win is noteworthy, I will reconsider my vote. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 01:03 (UTC)
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote if not. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 09:54 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad someone appreciated it. And to think it was almost removed. Anyway, I gotta say I'm quite inpressed withthe number of edits you have made in quite a short time. Well more than I've made and I've been a pretty active user for more than a year. -R. fiend 15:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, why don't you replace the current Xinjiao article, which is an ad, with the perfectly reasonable little stub you wrote, after which I'm sure everyone else will change their votes? I'd do it, except that'd fuck up the edit history. DS 18:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412! - thanks for voting.
Could you elaborate, what is it that you would care to keep: the article about the book or the list of worst movies in itself? (or both?) If the former - then such an article about the book should not be a list of the movies, I believe. If this is the list of "worst movies" that we keep, then 1) how can it ever become NPOV, 2) there are already other such lists in wikipedia (see e.g. references on the article's discussion page), which are kept, after the vfD discussions, on the grounds that they clearly and profoundly state the POV nature of such article. In any case, the article is in need of lots of improvement and doesn't it qualify for deletion just for that. What do you think? - Introvert (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
This was created as a proposed merge of several articles found on vfd:
A recurring theme in the literary, theatrical and film tradition of comedy is the of stock characters representing authority figures, designed to poke fun at officialdom by showing that its members are not immune to entanglement in the ridiculous. This is an old tradition, well illustrated in works such as Voltaire's Candide.
This article anticipates where I was going with the comedy police, comedy priest etc. articles. My intention was to gather all of them under a category of comedy authority figures and expand with examples and history. Sadly, after only one minute my projected series of articles was stopped before getting beyond a few stubs. I'm still stinging from this one (but I'll get over it) - I suppose if the resulting article says approximately the same things I was going to say it won't matter if someone else writes it.
Here's the problem -- just about everything in this insta-article is POV anti-Islam polemics (I can't find anything to keep), but it's the sort of content I would rather not delete wholesale, because if I do I set off troll attacks about "whitewashing." The article is, however, clearly designed to get around the block on the real article.
Perhaps a VfD? I looked hard under Speedy and could not find anything in the criteria there that would qualify. Think we have to go a standard route. Is there an admin who would nominate this for deletion? Or can someone else (without my ) do the merge and redirect? Let me know your thoughts. BrandonYusufToropov 03:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing up my multiple nomination on Vfd - I hadn't grasped that all I was missing was a simpel redirect. Ta --Doc(?) 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
NP - that's what I'm here for! :-D -- BD2412talk 01:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
