Talk:Waking the Tiger/Archive:Votes for Undeletion

Waking the Tiger
The VFD decision was to keep. --SPUI (talk) 06:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's the deletion:
 * 18:56, 3 Apr 2005 RickK deleted "Waking the Tiger" (recreation of previously-VFD'ed article)

The final product was nothing like what was originally VFDed. This is a shortcoming of the VFD process. --SPUI (talk) 06:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Undelete. Total rewrite. The original was a redirect to the VFDed article. When the direction was reversed and contents were moved, that's when Waking the Tiger got implicated. Also the Vfd process result was to keep.--Jondel 08:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * VfD result was actually 'no consensus' (4K, 4D). But yes, that means it should have been kept, so undelete. Radiant_* 11:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

This was an invalid recreation of an article which had a clear delete majority (10 to 1). All Jondel did was to rename it and strip off the VfD header. The second vote was an invalid vote, as it did not address the recreation of a previously-deleted by VfD process vote. RickK 21:59, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The condition of the article by the end of the second VFD was nowhere near the original deleted article. Thus your deletion as a "recreation of previously-VFD'ed article" was out of process and should be undone. --SPUI (talk) 23:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Rickk you're being unfair. Pls look at the very first contents of WTT. It was a redirect (to the VFDed article). This article existed almost as long as the Vfd article. I stripped off the Vfd header in good faith(in the undelete Voting of the other article), following suggestions of the other 2, thingking that this was the best option and within the consensus. But if you really are bent on keeping it off. Ok I'll try to focus on other things. Anyway, there are thousands of other articles that are notable.--Jondel 00:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Undelete. since it is a rewrite and a vfd showed that there was no consensus to delete this. Sjakkalle 07:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The original vote was overwhelmingly to delete. RickK 23:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The original vote was on a totally different article. Stop trolling. --SPUI (talk) 23:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * One more point about RickK's comment: It is more important that articles that people want kept get kept, than that the rules regarding deletion and speedies are strictly adhered to. Sjakkalle 06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is invalid process to rename a validly-deleted article and strip off the VfD header. This is a direct violation of the consensus to delete the article.  And the purpose of VfU is not to get a second chance (or in this case, a third chance) to get the votes to go your way.  RickK 06:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * RicK, I have not voted in either of the vfd-debates, just in this VfU debate. And if "invalid process" is the only reason to delete something, I feel it is rather thin. Sjakkalle 08:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted - article was a valid speedy deletion as recreation of VfD deleted content. SPUI's claim that the articles were not even similar does not stand up to even a brief look at both articles. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I saw a major difference. If the article could be temporarily undeleted (as I thought was policy on VFU, and which I have requested above), could be viewed to see the changes. --SPUI (talk) 02:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the temp undeletion. is the diff showing what was changed from the original article. This is not "reposted content" but different content, which still needs cleanup but has not been voted for deletion. --SPUI (talk) 03:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The diff doesn't work. But please note that even Jondel him/herself, in the edit summary, said Removed redirect, added and copied contents from How to heal traumas.  So Jondel acknoweldged that the information in the article was copied from the VfD'd article.  This was a violation of consensus, a violation of the VfD process, and not acting in good faith because Jondel has claimed all along that the information was different when even his/her own edit summary says otherwise.  RickK 06:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, is the diff. If you had speedied it on creation (or on termination of the first VFD), it would have been with policy. But you waited for a rewrite, and what you deleted was not a recreation of already-deleted content. You allowed the second VFD to happen as if it mattered, but when you disagreed with its result, you speedied it anyway. --SPUI (talk) 12:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RickK, you showed that are good administrator with your help to keep the Mi Ultimo Adios article which I completely rewrote to keep on the wikipedia. And I appreciate your 'Its notable in Philippine history remark'. I am grateful for that

I apologize for having stripped the Vfd header and violating the Vfd process, copying contents and not acting in good faith. This will not happen again. To the best of my knowledge, I will not violate what is in consensus or the Vfd process, I will not strip the Vfd header again.

About the undelete,please examine these:

Vote for deletion How to heal Traumas The date of the first vote for deletion by Plek is 14 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Now please compare this versions and see if they are different:


 * Last update of Waking the Tiger


 * 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) version  with a special guest appearance by Medusa

Do these two still look like the same article? The current Waking the Tiger now does not have copied contents.

Please let us all now move on. Undelete or keep deleted(is fine by me). There are many other fish in the ocean. I gotta go get a cup of coffee --Jondel 07:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Vague keep or re-VfD. --JuntungWu 11:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger
This has been listed here for over five days. At least three people and a majority agree to undelete. Therefore, according to Undeletion policy, it should be undeleted. --SPUI (talk) 22:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Undeleted and relisted on VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)