This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dank (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 7 January 2010 (→Why did i not get a chance to object to this?: usually one week). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:11, 7 January 2010 by Dank (talk | contribs) (→Why did i not get a chance to object to this?: usually one week)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | This administrator is currently on administrator review. |
| Admin stuff | Images | Links | News | Sandbox | Shiny things | Speedy deletions | WP:Update |
 |
|---|
| (12/07-4/08) - (-7/08) - (-11/08) |
| (-2/09) - Mar - Apr - May - Jun |
| Jul/Aug - Sept/Oct - Nov/Dec |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Why did i not get a chance to object to this?
Marknutley/The Gore Effect I object to this wip being deleted, it was not an attack page in any way shape or form. It is an article on the well known phrase "The Gore Effect" All the entries were reliably sourced and i can`t actually believe you took time to read either the article nor the links. I wish to appeal this deletion and request you let me know how to. I would also like to point out two admins had already seen this page and had no issues with it and were offering constructive advice on building it up ] --mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:Deletion review is where deletions are appealed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, if it is deleted then how can it be appealed? How can anyone see what was there?
Below you say the refs were not working, sorry about that but i am fairly new and as it was a wip they would have been fixed. Can you let me know how i can link to the deleted article for appeal please? --mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it will probably cause less drama if I undelete this page and take it to WP:Miscellany for deletion. Although we don't generally like to undelete pages like this one, there's no great harm done in disparaging Al Gore, and a full discussion will make it easier to handle similar pages that might pop up in the future (per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:CSD#G4). - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks man thats good of you, how long do i have to defend this btw? my kids are running riot and time is at a premium :) mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion usually lasts for a week, so take your time. However, it occasionally happens that voters will agree that a speedy deletion is appropriate, in which case it could happen faster. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
User space page deletion.
Can you please explain the deletion of User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. The page was NOT an attack page. Merely noting a correlation between the appearance of Al Gore and acts of nature is NOT an attack. Please reconsider. Alternatively how can this action be appealed? --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:Deletion review is where deletions are appealed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, the first item in the instructions indicates that we should attempt to resolve the issue with you first. So here I am back to do so. Can you please justify your action. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure; my justification is that I've been very active in deletion work in attack pages for almost a year now and, based on what I've seen, I think the decision will probably lean in favor of speedy deletion at WP:DRV, but it wouldn't offend me a bit if you want to take it to DRV. You're entitled and welcome to your day in court, and it's even possible the decision will go the other way there. The things I looked at were Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect (resulting in delete), and the part of WP:CSD#G10 that says that the title can also be taken into account. Unlike some of the other speedy deletion criteria, G10 does require that I make judgments that can't always be justified by the actual words on the page ... for example, if a new page by a new editor says only "Joe X ... he's so cool!" they might have really meant to promote his coolness in Misplaced Pages. But, teenagers being what they are, the odds are that this was meant to embarrass Joe X, and even if that wasn't the intent, Joe X is likely to perceive it as an attempt to embarrass him, so it gets speedy deleted per G10, since the effect of the page is to disparage someone, and there's nothing on the page that could become encyclopedic. Although Al Gore is a (very) public figure, so he doesn't get the same protection as Joe X, G10 still seems to apply here; I saw nothing in the "references" (no references were linked, just claimed, and the external links didn't help) to suggest that there's any actual phenomenon (or could be, unless you believe in psychic phenomena) that makes it colder wherever Al Gore travels, nor has the phrase gotten any currency (nor could it) outside the class of journalists whose journalistic skills don't rise far above calling politicians poopy-heads. If you repeat someone's attack, that's an attack, and is speediable under G10. Btw, the spirit of WP:CSD#G4 also applies, but I thought that might spin off into unproductive, technical arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. See the section above above; I'm now taking this to WP:Miscellany for deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure; my justification is that I've been very active in deletion work in attack pages for almost a year now and, based on what I've seen, I think the decision will probably lean in favor of speedy deletion at WP:DRV, but it wouldn't offend me a bit if you want to take it to DRV. You're entitled and welcome to your day in court, and it's even possible the decision will go the other way there. The things I looked at were Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect (resulting in delete), and the part of WP:CSD#G10 that says that the title can also be taken into account. Unlike some of the other speedy deletion criteria, G10 does require that I make judgments that can't always be justified by the actual words on the page ... for example, if a new page by a new editor says only "Joe X ... he's so cool!" they might have really meant to promote his coolness in Misplaced Pages. But, teenagers being what they are, the odds are that this was meant to embarrass Joe X, and even if that wasn't the intent, Joe X is likely to perceive it as an attempt to embarrass him, so it gets speedy deleted per G10, since the effect of the page is to disparage someone, and there's nothing on the page that could become encyclopedic. Although Al Gore is a (very) public figure, so he doesn't get the same protection as Joe X, G10 still seems to apply here; I saw nothing in the "references" (no references were linked, just claimed, and the external links didn't help) to suggest that there's any actual phenomenon (or could be, unless you believe in psychic phenomena) that makes it colder wherever Al Gore travels, nor has the phrase gotten any currency (nor could it) outside the class of journalists whose journalistic skills don't rise far above calling politicians poopy-heads. If you repeat someone's attack, that's an attack, and is speediable under G10. Btw, the spirit of WP:CSD#G4 also applies, but I thought that might spin off into unproductive, technical arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, the first item in the instructions indicates that we should attempt to resolve the issue with you first. So here I am back to do so. Can you please justify your action. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)