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

Why was this page deleted? This page was about one of the biggest ethnic groups in Argentina. There are about a million people of Italian descent in Argentina, and they make up about 50% of the country. Why was a notable community in Argentina was deleted. This is an outrage! If Italian Argentine was deleted, so should Italian American, Italian Brazilian, and Italian Australian. And also, there was never any reason or explanation on why this article was deleted. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_4#Redirects_created_by_a_blocked_user_.E2.86.92_various. There was nothing there but a redirect, and the redirect was created by a banned user, therefore the deletion was within proper procedure. If you want to create a sourced article about the subject, then go ahead, but there was nothing there to undelete to. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it was deleted. The original article that I created is gone. The original article was called Italian settlement in Argentina, later on the name was changed to Italian Argentine. Both pages are deleted. And the article was sourced, and two other users contributed on that page, but now our work is gone. This is why I am angry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it was listed under the batch of created redirects that were group-nommed in the debate corvus points to. The sheer number of redirects to be deleted there meant I couldn't scrutinize and poke around at every single one. Since there appears to be other content in this article that apparently none of the people that discussed this redirect caught, I'll look at this in more detail, it may have been a gaffe at my part. Wizardman 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this DRV. There was an article present, and as a result it should not have been in that RfD batch. I have restored the article. Wizardman 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't really want to make a big deal out of this or show any animosity, but User:Randomran circumverted deletion policy by removing nearly all the content while merging with another article. With the design of merging (with Linearity (video games)), he deleted nearly the entire text of the article. While I don't have a particular problem with the merger, per say, I think the deletion of all the content was rash and reckless. I think a warning from an administrator would be useful. SharkD (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute and there's nothing for DRV to do here. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought this would be a rather appropriate place to discuss issues regarding article deletions in general. Where would the right place to make my complaints known be? SharkD (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion occurred. Whatever information you feel should be merged is still visible in the history of this page. What content should make it into the target article is a subject for the consensus of the editors of that article, guided by policies and guidelines. Merges are not deletions. GRBerry 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close no deletion occurred to review. GRBerry 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CSD A7 The page for the band Barcelona was deleted for some reason. Barcelona has had three albums released internationally, have had all three of their records reviewed by Pitchfork Media, have a bio in All Music Guide, made the CMJ college charts, and have their music available on iTunes, Amazon and eusic, yet the page was deleted because the article did not "assert notability". If the page is undeleted, I would be happy to edit the page so that it links to these reviews, establishing that they are very much notable.

Boy that reads like it was copied from somewhere. It's also not an encyclopedia article and references specific time periods. It would be best if it were rewritten from scratch. Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted three times in one day; the second and third smell like copyright violations. The first looks somewhat better, but appears to be a legitimate A7. I recommend rewriting according to the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 04:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If the deleted versions were anything like what's in the cache, I'm going to have to suggest we overturn one of them. Down in the Discography section there's a subsection titled "Featured In", which says:

  Several Barcelona tracks including Everything Makes Me Think about Sex and Studio Hair Gel are featured in Todd Stephens' 2006 film Another Gay Movie.

  This, while not stellar, is enough of an assertion of importance for me to want a larger forum before deletion. Most likely listing at AfD after undeletion would be appropriate. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted now a fourth time; the fourth is equivalent to the second and third. You are viewing the cached version of the first; that article had hung around for a couple years. I wouldn't object if that version was sent to AFD, but leave the newer versions deleted, they are definitely inferior and smell like a copyright violation.. GRBerry 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there are two different bands named "Barcelona" appearing in the history of this article. A rock band from Seattle who have released one album, Absolutes, are the subject of the more recently deleted revisions that nobody is particularly impressed by. Then there is a new wave band from Washington DC with several albums and the songs in the film Another Gay Movie, who were the subject of the revision deleted first. See [1] for the most recent piece on them, if you're an admin. I don't think they quite meet WP:MUSIC but you could certainly argue that this article deserved an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given indication of numerous albums (with articles) and awards (e.g. Juno Award) for this musician, a speedy deletion of this article was an error, to say the least. Dl2000 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Keeper76, the page was just restored a few minutes ago. Dl2000 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted version said "A high school student in minnesota who loves his dinner. Also enjoys long walks on the beach." It appears this had been vandalised into an unacceptable stub. Kudos to Keeper76 for fixing it and a small trout for the deleting admin and the speedy nominator for not checking the article history. All is now well with Colin James. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per reasons indicated to deleting admin; also note that a number of those who initially said to delete did so before substantial revisions, but never re-commented in the discussion and some of the others I don't believe I have ever seen argue to keep (by contrast, I have even nominated to delete articles). Those editors who are relatively neutral (those whom I have seen argue both to keep and to delete articles), like Masem and DGG, argued to keep. Even some of those whom I more frequently see arguing to delete (A Man in Black and TTN) had merge suggestions in their posts, which if we did per the GFDL, would result in keeping the article's contribution history public and redirecting. My biggest concern though is that the revisions to the article in the attempt to address the concerns were not finished (for example, I hoped to move the article to Dragon Quest VIII characters and redirect List of Dragon Quest VIII characters to their in order to increase the more prose elements of the article. Per the concept of Wikipedia talk:Postponed deletion, which apparently some others in the AfD support, I think the five day thing is premature in this case. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close as Endorse. This nomination comes down to either AFD2 or that you don't like the outcome. DRV is for where there is a substantive issue with the discussion. Arguing for more time when most of the editors who came late to the discussion voted delete it just perverse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It comes down to those coming late to the discussion always "voting" to delete these kinds of articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment but of course one brings something to DRV when one doesn't likethe outcome. few people bring one when they do like the outcome. And when an article was deleted, this is the first step in getting DRV2. Deletion process is not symmetrical--after a keep one can nominate until it gets deleted, but one cant go the other way round. Hm.... maybe we need a rule that a delete can automatically be reopened on request after 6 months like a keep can, just to see if consensus has changed. Or else require DRV before bringing a second AfD after a keep decision. DGG (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rightly we discourage editors from bringing stuff here because they don't like the outcome. We usually expect them to have a valid reason to explain why the outcome of the original deletion discussion should be discarded. A valid reason hasn't been provided and Le Grand Roi should, after all this time, know better then that. To argue that they had improved the article when even the late entrants to the discussion were voting delete is clearly unsustainable, disruptive and time-wasting. We give newbies a lot of slack but experienced editors should show more respect to other editor's time rather then creating groundless DRVs like this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valid reason hasn't been provided to delete the article and experienced editors should show more respect to other editor's time rather than creating groundless AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination statement said This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted . This is firmly based in policy and grounded in precedent for previous deletions so your comment is, well, totally untrue. Please do not insult my intelligence by making nonsense statements like this that can easily be disproved by as little as 5 seconds checking. That's what is really disrespectful here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment is totally true, because reliable sources and assertions of notability were added. Please do not insult my intelligence by making nonsense statements that can easily be disproved by as little as 5 seconds of ehcking. That' is what is really disrespectful here. The assertion of notability is that unlike the overwhelming majority of video games characters, these characters were also made into action figurs and thus we have sources for both the toys and the video games, which is notable compared to the overwhelming majority of video game characters who don't also appear in other media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You just don't get it do you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you then make of ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional buildings, which turned out to have been nominated by a now banned user who was operating multiple socks and evaded these blocks by returning as yet another account after being banned only to be ideffed again? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinnok's amulet, where there were just as many arguments to keep, reliable sources actually do exist, and the last comment in the discussion was a note that the relevant wiki-project who may have been able to add such sources were notified long into the discussion? Two people arguing to delete something can somehow justify deletion under such circumstances? In that case you say it shouldn't be delayed, but delaying it could have resulted in the concerns being addressed, i.e. revising it into a clearly encyclopedic article. Why would we not want to allow editors to do so when they reasonably believe they can? If we don't, as in the project as a whole, have a deadline, isn't it not really respectful to not allow editors to have more than a mere five days when they are clearly making serious attempts to address the various concerns or even when some arguing to delete have merge suggestions within their statements? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Nakon correctly closed the debate as delete and this is not a second bite at the cherry, no matter how much mud is slung in my direction on the deleting admin's talk page. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, since you don't actually show anything wrong with either the process or the result. Meta-commenting on the people involved in the discussion and your observations on their commenting tendencies is completely irrelevant, and seems rather bizarre. We don't place more or less value on people's comments because of who made them, only the content itself matters. If you or anyone else wants to fix the problems identified in the discussion, just ask an admin to userfy it for you. - Bobet 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the process is that it was closed while revisions were taking place to address the nominator's concerns. It does matter if those commenting have an uncompromising bias and singular purpose with regards to AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could be a valid argument to relist or overturn an AFD except that users were still supporting deletion after the improvements. Therefore it isn't Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why it's a problem as indicated, because several of those in the discussion have said elsewhere they will never argue to keep in AfDs or that their whole purpose is to delete articles. I and others who argued to keep in that disucssion, by contrast, have argued to delete elsewhere. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Conensus is what the entire community of editors forms as a consensus; not just the subset that agrees with you. Badlydrawnjeff, who formerly was a DRV regular who opined to overturn some 90%+ of the time he spoke up was still selective about when he spoke up. Those you want disregarded because they "always" opine for deletion are also selective about which articles they opine on it. You need to find a compromise or agreement with them - which will probably be when you come to accept the community norms published in existing policies and guidelines that are the basis for their opinions. Tilting at windmills is permitted, but not very comfortable. Don't expect to actually get anywhere unless you change your strategy and tactics. There are reasons behind the community consensus guidelines; until you understand those reasons you'll have no luck getting other editors to agree there should be a change. GRBerry 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem with accounts who approach AfDs as only to argue delete is that it doesn't matter how many improvements one makes to the article in question and so it's not really a discussion when someone comes to it determined to argue to delete at all costs, even when the article has been improved. It's not as if I think all game articles are notable. Please note my stances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. And if I can argue to delete, surely some of these others can also argue to keep at least occasionally? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion closure; that was the only possible closure of that AFD. GRBerry 22:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other possibility would be "no consensus". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per GRBerry; given the AFD, any other result would be outrageous. HiDrNick! 11:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would not be outrageous to close as "no consensus" when six editors argued to keep and another argued to merge and when the process of revising the article was still ongoing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Consensus was interpreted correctly according to our current policies and guidelines. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image previously deleted at Commons for being a reproduction of a copyrighted statue. Image was kept here at en.wiki due to fair use. Someone re-uploaded it at Commons and the local version was deleted. Image should be restored here because the Commons version will be deleted. -Nard 01:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, possibly speedily. This won't survive at Commons, and was deleted here solely because there is an identical image at commons. GRBerry 03:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I went ahead and undeleted as this is clearly uncontroversial. Nardman you need to fix the tags on it though. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thank you. -Nard 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]