Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digg (2nd nomination)

This article was speedy deleted earlier today; I undeleted it as 1) it was not a speedy delete! and 2) it shouldn't be deleted in any case IMO. Thue | talk 06:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. I left a message for the admin who deleted it explaining that it didn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Rhobite 06:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * What about recreation of a deleted article? - brenneman (t) (c)  06:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not substantially identical to the text of the previous article, so that criterion doesn't apply. Also, it would be nice if people could take a step back and notice that Digg is quickly becoming more and more notable. Rhobite 06:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an article recreated for this page. I mean take a look at Fark.com here on wikipedia and Slashdot these pages should serve as a sort of guide for the creation of a new Digg page.  I realize that digg is not quite as popular as Fark, but depending on where you check it is comparable to Slashdot.  Yet digg has qualities of its own that distinguish it from these other sites in the fact that there is little overall admin control, and all links that make the front page are there because of end users and not by mod promotion.  I know WP isn't a directory of websites, but i feel this site is deserving of it's own article.   Malo 06:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) It's easy to say it's not a re-creation, but that carries the same weight as saying it is. None.
 * 2) Thus the appropiate place for this is WP:VfU.  It's pointless go around re-un-re-deleting things, and looks ridiculous to boot.  brenneman (t) (c)  06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. It's easy to prove that the current version does not resemble any deleted revision. Any admin can look through the deleted revisions and see this. If you're not an admin, I can e-mail you the old versions of the article so you can see for yourself. And the only thing that looks ridiculous is for us to have a good article for a number of weeks, only to have it abruptly replaced by a deleted page warning. Rhobite 07:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why you should have taken this to VfU. If it is not a re-creation, it's all sorted out and the article plops happily back into it's spot.  Instead we have yet another wheel war.  brenneman (t) (c)  07:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zoe should have taken this to VfD but let's not get caught up in mindless wikilawyering. The fact remains that Digg is a notable site and it should be covered on Wikipedia. It looks silly for us not to have an article on the site. Come on, we even have an article about their webcast diggnation. Do you still want me to e-mail you some old deleted revisions to compare? Rhobite 07:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but that's not actually what I'm interested in here. What I am concerned about is
 * Zoe deletes page as "recreated content".
 * Zoe gets a rebuke on "process" and the page gets undeleted.
 * Could we agree, in retrospect, that this could have been handled better? brenneman (t) (c)  15:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this could have been handled better: Zoe shouldn't have violated the deletion policy. Rhobite 18:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * And you made things better exactly how again? - brenneman (t) (c)  00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * By restoring an article after Zoe improperly deleted it for the second time, of course. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 01:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone should start acting less childish, and more like the U.N.. - brenneman (t) (c)  00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean we should endlessly pass resolutions in lieu of doing actual work? No thanks. Rhobite 03:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to write almost exactly the same reply, but I chickened out. :) &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of activity on the Deletion Log for Digg. I would say this should get a new chance at staying around.  The number of users of digg.com is presently about 27998 (oops, now 28011), much much smaller than Slashdot, but it seems to be growing rapidly.  See Page 934 of the top digg users page, or later pages if the number has increased.  -- 07:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC).

So it doesn't matter that the votes for deletion and the votes to keep deleted were all because the subject was non-notable? So if an article I write gets deleted because the subject is non-notable, all I have to do is rewrite it in other words and we have to go through the process all over again, over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum? Zoe 22:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted the older versions so that any useful content can be salvaged by the process of normal editing. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How completely inappropriate. The logic there seems to be:
 * A reproduced page is speedy
 * But this page isn't that, so we'll keep it, so
 * Let's get the old page and reproduce it.
 * I'd ask what's the hurry? Why must this page be done today, with unilateral actions like undeleting the older versions ?  What's wrong with a nice slow conversation, where we all agree in the end what should be done.  Unless some parties would prefer to avoid that discussion?  brenneman (t) (c)  00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just not interested in the politicking. We've got a notable website and people who are itching to edit the article one it. Let's just remove any and all encumberances and let them get on with it.  Remember we're here to write an encyclopedia, not hold discussions, pass resolutions, etc. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This attempts to present the case that an editor who removes is not here to write an encyclopedia, and is an ad hominum statement. brenneman (t) (c)  04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What Tony is apparently interested in doing is the unilateral undermining of VfU. See his decision, despite universal votes to keep deleted, to undelete Francesca Easthope.  Zoe 04:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Zoe, I don't know what VfU you're reading, but the one about this article strongly supports keeping it. Rhobite 06:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above comment refers to his unilateral action on Francesca Easthope. Zoe 07:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"What Tony is apparently interested in doing is the unilateral undermining of VfU."


 * . . . said the person who responded by disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.


 * And of course, the present Digg situation stemmed from your decision to unilaterally undermine the speedy deletion process. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The point that I am apparently failing to make is this: You'll notice that most admins have identical powers. Thus any contest between them is not only pointless, but is very poor form. It amounts, in the absence of discussion, to a test of who'll push the button more. I'd like to point out that while WP:BOLD says to be bold in editing articles, WP:ADMIN urges you to use caution. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 04:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If Zoe was wrong, would it have killed someone to put a note on xir talk, providing evidence of the mistake and let Zoe fix it xirself?
 * The circus could have been halted by either party letting the version they didn't like remain while they talked.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"If Zoe was wrong, would it have killed someone to put a note on xir talk, providing evidence of the mistake and let Zoe fix it xirself?"


 * 1. As Tony noted above, this is an encyclopedia. The expedient restoration of legitimate content was more important than being extra-special-super-duper nice to the admin who repeatedly violated policy (and compromised the encyclopedia's quality) by deleting it out-of-process.


 * 2. Zoe refuses to acknowledge that the deletion of the new Digg article was improper, and apparently believes that any and all articles by that title should be deleted in perpetuity (no questions asked).


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"The circus could have been halted by either party letting the version they didn't like remain while they talked."


 * Huh? Zoe left no version of the article.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"You'll notice that most admins have identical powers. Thus any contest between them is not only pointless, but is very poor form."


 * Are you suggesting that all administrative decisions (including the flagrantly bad ones) should be respected and upheld as a courtesy among colleagues?


 * Zoe screwed up. Others fixed the mistake.  End of story (or chapter, at least).


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"It amounts, in the absence of discussion, to a test of who'll push the button more."


 * In this instance, one specific button-pusher was unequivocally wrong.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"I'd like to point out that while WP:BOLD says to be bold in editing articles,"


 * Does it say to be bold in deleting them?


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"WP:ADMIN urges you to use caution."


 * How much caution did Zoe use when deleting the article on a whim? Are you and I even discussing the same situation?  (I'm not so sure.)  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the litany of personal attacks. Zoe 23:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * What personal attacks? &mdash;Lifeisunfair 01:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd refer you to WP:CIV and WP:DICK. All of your arguments pre-suppose that Zoe was, um, unequivocally wrong when deleting the article on a whim in a flagrantly bad  way that repeatedly violated policy. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This could be correct. But it might not be. Clearly Zoe thought she was correct, just as the other button pushers thought they were correct.
 * In a disagreement of this nature, neither one nor the other person should presume that their button pushing counts for more in some way.
 * The cheerleading of, "Yeah, we were right, nha-nha" is asinine. Even if you're right.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"I'd refer you to WP:CIV"


 * I maintain that I haven't personally attacked Zoe; I've criticized her undeniable violation of the speedy deletion policy and related behavior. Even if I'd wanted to see the article in question deleted, I would have adopted the same stance.


 * My biggest objection is not to the deletions themselves, but to Zoe's refusal to apologize or even acknowledge that they were remotely inappropriate. Instead, she's directed numerous rude remarks toward those who have attempted to explain the clear disparity between the actual speedy deletion policy and the nonexistent version that she attempted to enforce (and cited when accusing Thue of "improperly undelet[ing]" the article).


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"and WP:DICK."


 * Are you calling me a "dick"? That certainly seems like a personal attack.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"All of your arguments pre-suppose that Zoe was, um, unequivocally wrong"


 * She was. Read the policy (which you previously cited as justification for Zoe's deletions), and explain to me how there can be any doubt.


 * Wikipedia is chock full of gray area, but not in this case.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"when deleting the article on a whim"


 * Can you direct my attention to one piece of evidence that Zoe made any effort to examine the new article's status before deleting it?


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"in a flagrantly bad way"


 * It's my opinion that unilaterally deleting a legitimate article is flagrantly bad. You're welcome to disagree.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"that repeatedly violated policy."


 * Again, I invite you to read the policy in question, and explain how Zoe's deletion was anything other than a violation.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"This could be correct. But it might not be."


 * I assert that it is (and eagerly await your rebuttal). Should I be posting someone else's opinion?


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"Clearly Zoe thought she was correct, just as the other button pushers thought they were correct."


 * That's because Zoe was wrong, and other admins were right. This isn't a theory; it's a fact.  Read the speedy deletion policy.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"In a disagreement of this nature, neither one nor the other person should presume that their button pushing counts for more in some way."


 * I'm of the strong belief that existent policies count for more than nonexistent policies.


 * <font style="color:#00A651;">"The cheerleading of, 'Yeah, we were right, nha-nha' is asinine."


 * 1. Who's doing that?


 * 2. Why is it okay for you to refer to someone's behavior as "asinine," but not okay for me to refer to someone's behavior as "flagrantly bad"?


 * "Even if you're right."


 * Are you under the impression that I was directly involved in the article's undeletion? &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Asinine
You're correct, it was uncivil to say that. I apologize without reservation. I also apologise for characterising your contribution to this discussion as "cheerleading", that was also uncivil, and I again apologise.

This point-for-point is fairly tedious, and I don't think any real communication is taking place. Although, and I mean to say this sooner, good use of colour.

You seem to be trying to convince me further as to the correctness of the initial deletion. Please note that I'm not arguing that.

If we leave aside your reiteration of previous comments and pointing out my incivility, we're left with WP:CIV and WP:DICK. Which I again refer you to, noting only that by definition using it as a reference make me one. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 04:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)